From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 11:06:46 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:06:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <4A73DF39.B4DAAA36@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> Hugely popular would appear to be something of an understatement... According to one of the articles discussing this, Skype currently has 480 MILLION subscribers i.e. roughly 8% of all the people on earth and probably 50% of all those currently connected to or otherwise using the Internet! My guess as well is that the role of Skype as a "necessary" (public) service is rather greater in LDC's than in Developed Countries; among NGO's, non-profits and at the grassroots rather than for corporate communicators; and as part of the glue that makes globalization "for everyone else" (viz. the non-Walmarts of the world) work i.e. for national and international migrants, small export/import operators, non-tour based international travellers, conference goers, international volunteers and technical assistance workers etc.etc. Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... My guess is that if the socio-demography of users relying on it as a primary communications vehicle were skewed towards the other end of the income/influence pyramid legislators would be very actively looking at ways of maintaining it as a necessary public service... MBG -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:23 PM, To: Governance/IGC; Eric Dierker Cc: Parminder; Carlton Samuels; Roland Perry; Michael Gurstein; McTim Subject: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype All, Seems to me that Skype and it's original founders seem to wish to torpedo their own creation. That seems like a poor judgment to me and as such demonstrates rather weak leadership. See: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/07/31/0714232 "eBay is faced with the prospect of having to close down the hugely popular VoIP app Skype due to its reliance on proprietary code still owned by Skype's original founders, who are http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/shock-threat-to-shut-skype-2009 0731-e3qe.html threatening to pull the plug on the licensing agreement they have with eBay." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Aug 1 11:20:18 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:20:18 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> Message-ID: <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> On 31/07/2009, at 11:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential > a service to be left to the market... Actually the lesson for discussion at the IGF is a very simple one; "stick to open standards". This is why I have always preferred to use SIP for Internet telephony, being an open standard that no single vendor can lock up. If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to encourage more people to switch to SIP providers. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 1 11:30:14 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:30:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> References: <4A73DF39.B4DAAA36@ix.netcom.com> <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> Message-ID: [excessive cc: list trimmed] In message <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A at userPC>, at 08:06:46 on Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >According to one of the articles discussing this, Skype currently has 480 >MILLION subscribers i.e. roughly 8% of all the people on earth and probably >50% of all those currently connected to or otherwise using the Internet! In the last couple of years I've seen the "number of users online" figure they publish on their user interface creep past 12 million, but that includes those who automatically load the application and then don't use it very often. I've seen some other figures which say eBay has 370 million accounts, but only 65 million are "active" (which they define as having made at least one transaction in the previous 12 months). How many "active" Skype accounts are there, and how would you define it? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Aug 1 11:38:43 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:38:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> Message-ID: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:06, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... my guess is that the incumbent telecom providers would love to see it fail. plus 'too big to fail' just mean that rich people will feel some pain if it fails, has nothing to do with the needs of LDCs, NGOs. one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work with VoIP. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Aug 1 11:41:57 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:41:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to encourage > more people to switch to SIP providers. i used to run both, but SIP never did as decent a job. and most of the providers using SIP charged more. i believe in open source as much as possible, but when those providing service with OSS charge more then the proprietary providers, one has to wonder. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 12:23:50 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype Message-ID: <182975.62345.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am quite sure you meant to say "Skype is too essential to be interfered with by government" --- On Fri, 7/31/09, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Gurstein" Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 4:15 PM On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a > service to be left to the market... no > > I'm not sure what can be done about this but it seems to me that this (or at > least this class of issues) would be a suitable discussion topic for the > next Internet Governance Forum... > > How does one declare an Internet service as essential to the global interest > and introduce some means to ensure its survival? eBay spent 2.6 B USD on this thing...do you think they will actually shut it down? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 12:28:14 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:28:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6F0B6E1834514EBE881795E52237C3AB@userPC> Sorry, I was just the messenger on the Skype subscribers numbers and have no idea of the ultimate source (the article came from the Bloomberg news service via Yahoo as I recall... M -----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 8:30 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype [excessive cc: list trimmed] In message <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A at userPC>, at 08:06:46 on Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Michael Gurstein writes >According to one of the articles discussing this, Skype currently has >480 MILLION subscribers i.e. roughly 8% of all the people on earth and >probably 50% of all those currently connected to or otherwise using the >Internet! In the last couple of years I've seen the "number of users online" figure they publish on their user interface creep past 12 million, but that includes those who automatically load the application and then don't use it very often. I've seen some other figures which say eBay has 370 million accounts, but only 65 million are "active" (which they define as having made at least one transaction in the previous 12 months). How many "active" Skype accounts are there, and how would you define it? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 12:28:14 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:28:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> Message-ID: <71BF050FDC5948CE8C36751DF4BA9E37@userPC> Avri, (more musings on a sunny summer morning... I think that "too big to fail" actually refers to the failure being one that brings the entire system down... Which means in this instance I guess that the needs of the rich and the others may be so intertwined that a failure this massive would affect everyone (which in the case of Skype may be true since the rich have kids travelling internationally, servants using Skype to maintain family ties that might otherwise be put in jeapordy with unpredictable consequences, low cost producers of sub-assemblies in LDC's etc.etc. Hard to know... (and my experience and the experience of a bunch of folks that I know with SIP was similar to yours... (Part of the attraction of Skype is its ease and transparency of use... But then there is still the larger question of regulation for "essential services" in the electronic age Note: After the United States entered World War I in 1917, the country's railways proved inadequate to the task of supplying the nation's war effort. On December 26, 1917, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson nationalized most American railways under the Federal Possession and Control Act, creating the United States Railroad Administration (USRA), which took control of the railways on December 28, 1917. The USRA introduced several reforms to increase efficiency and reduce costs, including standardizing rolling stock and steam locomotive designs. The war ended in 1918, and on March 1, 1920, the railways were handed back to their original owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization#United_States So what would be the equivalent and the equivalent legislative structure in the age of the Internet--Maybe Skype is just the Western Pacific (or Canadian Pacific) of our era... MBG -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 8:39 AM To: Governance/IGC Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:06, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... my guess is that the incumbent telecom providers would love to see it fail. plus 'too big to fail' just mean that rich people will feel some pain if it fails, has nothing to do with the needs of LDCs, NGOs. one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work with VoIP. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 13:11:19 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype Message-ID: <894631.6522.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yes indeed, Open Standards. And if ICANN focused more on Standards than survival we would be much better off.   Skype is not the issue.  Innovation and consumer retention is the issue.  Absolutely no way in hell should the “govners” of the Internet begin to build robust socialistic preservation societies for private enterprise success stories.  No more sure way to kill them than that.  If there is a need and we prevent governed interference, the fittest and most dynamic model will excel.   Roland: Great point ---  sometimes larger corporate structures create a sideproduct that does not fit in with the overall funding motif of that structure – but the idea and product is so good it just plain flourishes (Once my mother described me as the youngest of six kids as being such a by product – fair nuf)  Perhaps time for Skype to grow up and move out on its own.   Joe:  Your recent comment that declares that the only governors of the Internet are end consumers, is proven here.  No matter how much ebay ignored Skype it grew (always remembering the ultimate flattery is imitation)   McTim: No! was the perfect response.  If governance is to help the people and indeed that is the noblest goal, our efforts toward subsidies, grants and access enhancement should be focused on doing for the disenfranchised or barred users.  It should be a pointed synergy to create access and reliability for those without. It should be to facilitate the useage of existing paradigms to enhance quality of life --  Not the enhancement or protection of the paradigms.   My choices both corporate and personal have been not focused so much on product but on the politics of use: In Vietnam we use the most expensive system  -  that facilitates us spending money on developing technologies and the people. If my wife sees our home bills I use the cheapest to promote tranquility.  In my mobile office we use a Packet 8 system right out of 1 Wilshire, and caged next to Yahoo.  I don’t like to be seen, but when my loved ones travel I insist on a Skype video concept so I can judge health and they can see home.  To Mexico it is all Vonage – seems to be politically correct and lowtech. (note the shameless plug for dotLOWTECH, a Dierker owned, Babtista designed TLD)   The only real shock about Skype is the shock some folks experience at watching how services grow and evolve. --- On Sat, 8/1/09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: From: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 3:20 PM On 31/07/2009, at 11:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a service to be left to the market... Actually the lesson for discussion at the IGF is a very simple one; "stick to open standards".  This is why I have always preferred to use SIP for Internet telephony, being an open standard that no single vendor can lock up.  If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to encourage more people to switch to SIP providers. --JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East    Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 14:14:43 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:14:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Open Ltr. to Babtista (obscenity) Message-ID: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I write in apology.  I suffered ill intentions toward your comments earlier this week. Without cause. In defense I read your posts in much hurry without reflection or empathy. I considered them ill mannered and in bad taste. I was wrong. It is the subjects and actions you criticize that are disgusting and ill mannered. Your proclamation of that is honorable. (if we use euphemism - saying Homo Erectus excrement, the unwise may not be warned against it -- if we label it SHIT -- we may spare them from disastrous disease) Cute, coy well mannered talk often masks real and present dangers, leading to suffering of our brothers.   A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such thing)   Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and       . Making disgustingly disparaging remarks against those who carry on the entrepreneurial spirit and succeed.  Their unabashed hatred and contempt for those who have the accident of being wealthy would make Marx - industrial proletariat revolution and Ho Chi Minh - agrarian proletariat revolution, blush, and it creates tyrants like Lenin and Pol Pot. The absolute ignorance of and disdain for free enterprise and freedom to fail and choice is truly abhorrent and obscene.  Their scary thinly veiled stated belief that we should turn the reins of technological development and user choice over to their kind of Crats is truly dangerous to society. That kind of hate speech should be censored here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Aug 1 16:29:53 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:29:53 +0200 Subject: Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... In-Reply-To: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <594E84F7-958A-4BBF-9CBE-98316DA2B079@psg.com> On 1 Aug 2009, at 20:14, Eric Dierker wrote: > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not > know the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or > some such thing) > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria > and . Making disgustingly disparaging remarks ... > That kind of hate speech should be censored here. 1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) - Associate Justice Justice Potter Stewart (never chief and i don't judge wisdom) I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1] and some other definitions from: http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ob/obscenity195426.html Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant magistrate. Bertrand Russell Obscenity is a cleansing process, whereas pornography only adds to the murk. Henry Miller Obscenity, which is ever blasphemy against the divine beauty in life, is a monster for which the corruption of society forever brings forth new food, which it devours in secret. Percy Bysshe Shelley Since obscenity is the truth of our passion today, it is the only stuff of art - or almost the only stuff. David Herbert Lawrence The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography. Phyllis Schlafly You have to show violence the way it is. If you don't show it realistically, then that's immoral and harmful. If you don't upset people, then that's obscenity. Roman Polanski Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. Herbert Marcuse Commercial speech is like obscenity... we can't seem to define it, but we know it when we see it. Jef I. Richards Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. William J. Brennan, Jr. at the risk for further branding (and taring and feathering) i have always been partial to Marcuse. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 1 18:30:24 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Beauty beyond was;Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... Message-ID: <592758.97509.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dearest Avri,   Your wisdom is given away by your words. A mix in my head of Bruni, Theresa, Sophia, and Golda.  You are as quick witted as ever Shakespeare could have been and piercing of the heart as Cleopatra must have been.  You are a person of great insight blended with passion and compassion.   Why then, when it comes to your actions in ICANN do you shrink like a waif not yet convicted of the worth of your hearfelt knowledge? Your stated disdain for the elites, by way of power, prestige and money do not jive with your lapdog approach to the GNSO. I swear sometimes you act as one trying to atone for guilt at not being worthy of your own opines.   Reinstate Joe and Jeff to the GA.  Make statements through actions of inclusion of the unwashed. Do not be satisfied in knowing your own heart but follow it in deed.   I am not ashamed of my affection for your brilliance and so any post to you in private may be made public, it is out of respect I do not shout from rooftops. From our first exchanges some years ago, I recognized and respected your gifts, I wish only for you to capitalize on them. Clearly I am a highwayman and rogue and not suited for association with one of your position.   Eric --- On Sat, 8/1/09, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... To: "Governance/IGC List" Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 8:29 PM On 1 Aug 2009, at 20:14, Eric Dierker wrote: > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such thing) > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and       . Making disgustingly disparaging remarks ... > That kind of hate speech should be censored here. 1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) - Associate Justice Justice Potter Stewart  (never chief and i don't judge wisdom) I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1] and some other definitions from: http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ob/obscenity195426.html Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant magistrate. Bertrand Russell Obscenity is a cleansing process, whereas pornography only adds to the murk. Henry Miller Obscenity, which is ever blasphemy against the divine beauty in life, is a monster for which the corruption of society forever brings forth new food, which it devours in secret. Percy Bysshe Shelley Since obscenity is the truth of our passion today, it is the only stuff of art - or almost the only stuff. David Herbert Lawrence The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography. Phyllis Schlafly You have to show violence the way it is. If you don't show it realistically, then that's immoral and harmful. If you don't upset people, then that's obscenity. Roman Polanski Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. Herbert Marcuse Commercial speech is like obscenity... we can't seem to define it, but we know it when we see it. Jef I. Richards Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. William J. Brennan, Jr. at the risk for further branding (and taring and feathering) i have always been partial to Marcuse. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 1 18:45:33 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:45:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602 at acm.org>, at 17:38:43 on Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Avri Doria writes >one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core >piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient >compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering >themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? > >what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work >with VoIP. I'm wondering how many people use Skype to talk, and how many to exchange instant messages. My own usage is heavily biassed towards the instant messaging. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 1 22:15:24 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:15:24 -0400 Subject: Beauty beyond was;Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... In-Reply-To: <592758.97509.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <592758.97509.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908011915h4b0ba577g4a19151d04735e5a@mail.gmail.com> I have been reinstated. I received some written gibberish from Avri this morning and then a complimentary ICANN you back on the list from Glen de Saint Géry - oley! But I don't thing Jeff Williams has been added back to the list. I just want to take a moment and thank you Eric for keeping this issue alive. And now that i am back on the GA list where I belong I assure you I will not let the issue die. What these clowns have participated in under the aupices of a U.S. government contract amounts to abuse and outright fraud. Shame. 24 hours to completly right this wrong. Avri if you please - initiate the reinstatement of Jeff Williams who was also illegally removed from the GA. Thanks in advance joe baptista On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Dearest Avri, > > Your wisdom is given away by your words. A mix in my head of Bruni, > Theresa, Sophia, and Golda. You are as quick witted as ever Shakespeare > could have been and piercing of the heart as Cleopatra must have been. You > are a person of great insight blended with passion and compassion. > > Why then, when it comes to your actions in ICANN do you shrink like a waif > not yet convicted of the worth of your hearfelt knowledge? Your stated > disdain for the elites, by way of power, prestige and money do not jive with > your lapdog approach to the GNSO. I swear sometimes you act as one trying to > atone for guilt at not being worthy of your own opines. > > Reinstate Joe and Jeff to the GA. Make statements through actions of > inclusion of the unwashed. Do not be satisfied in knowing your own heart but > follow it in deed. > > I am not ashamed of my affection for your brilliance and so any post to you > in private may be made public, it is out of respect I do not shout from > rooftops. From our first exchanges some years ago, I recognized and > respected your gifts, I wish only for you to capitalize on them. Clearly I > am a highwayman and rogue and not suited for association with one of your > position. > > Eric > > --- On *Sat, 8/1/09, Avri Doria * wrote: > > > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Obscenity was Re: [governance] Open Ltr. ... > To: "Governance/IGC List" > Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 8:29 PM > > > On 1 Aug 2009, at 20:14, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know > the definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such > thing) > > > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and . > Making disgustingly disparaging remarks > ... > > That kind of hate speech should be censored here. > > 1 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) - Associate Justice Justice > Potter Stewart (never chief and i don't judge wisdom) > > I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I > understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1] > > and some other definitions from: > http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ob/obscenity195426.html > > Obscenity is whatever happens to shock some elderly and ignorant > magistrate. > Bertrand Russell > > Obscenity is a cleansing process, whereas pornography only adds to the > murk. > Henry Miller > > Obscenity, which is ever blasphemy against the divine beauty in life, is a > monster for which the corruption of society forever brings forth new food, > which it devours in secret. > Percy Bysshe Shelley > > Since obscenity is the truth of our passion today, it is the only stuff of > art - or almost the only stuff. > David Herbert Lawrence > > The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth > over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography. > Phyllis Schlafly > > You have to show violence the way it is. If you don't show it > realistically, then that's immoral and harmful. If you don't upset people, > then that's obscenity. > Roman Polanski > > Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, > which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality > but to those of another. > Herbert Marcuse > > Commercial speech is like obscenity... we can't seem to define it, but we > know it when we see it. > Jef I. Richards > > Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which > deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. > William J. Brennan, Jr. > > > at the risk for further branding (and taring and feathering) i have always > been partial to Marcuse. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 1 22:22:21 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:22:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: GA list, Joe Baptista & Jeff Williams Message-ID: <874c02a20908011922q6c8698f7uc5a6bdca68987c14@mail.gmail.com> For the record - here is what I got from Avri. This is the nonsense I was referring to.in my email to Eric. I will respond to this at a later time. Right now Avri still has one more injustice to right. The reinstatement of Jeff Williams. cheers joe baptista ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM Subject: GA list To: Joe Baptista Cc: Glen de Saint Gery Dear Mr. Baptista, As I am sure you know, as you were one of the list monitors, the GA list asked to self-regulate and GNSO Council decided in 2007 (resolution 20070906-2) to let it do so. But as you say, the council is ultimately responsible for the mailing list, and as the current council chair I am the address for an appeal. In this case, though I hate to act under threat as that leads people to believe that threats are the proper way to behave, I took your threat and treated it as if it had been a actual appeal. After investigating the details, it does seem that the time of your suspension had ended and that you should have been reinstated. I do not know if the list monitor is responsible for taking action to restore a suspended list member or if the suspended member is expected to request reinstatement, but I believe that a request on your part would have most likely been sufficient. While it might have been possible for me, according to the rules adopted by the GA list, to request an extra period of suspension due to your public threats against me, I have decided not to do so and have requested that you be reinstated at this time. Avri Doria Chair GNSO Council -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be Sun Aug 2 00:24:10 2009 From: christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be (Christopher Wilkinson) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 06:24:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: GA list, etc. In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908011922q6c8698f7uc5a6bdca68987c14@mail.gmail.com> References: <874c02a20908011922q6c8698f7uc5a6bdca68987c14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7514EA.7080604@skynet.be> Good morning: I have removed from this list until further notice. I may revisit the list in two weeks time ... CW ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 2 01:07:36 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? Message-ID: <150105.64732.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This mail has been getting me to wonder; "what does Jeanette Hofmann do regarding IG that is more relevant than a General Assembly attached to Generic Names as part of the closest thing we have to IG??"      I suppose her objection to discussing GA here has something more deep, closer to a prohibition on cross posting.  Something about dividing and conquering.  Something about not letting the unruly masses know what is going on across the board.  But perhaps there is something that most of us are not aware of that Ms. Hoffmann and Lucy Lynch are involved in.  If that is the case I would sure appreciate being updated.   --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Lucy Lynch" Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 5:48 AM Hi, can you please take discussions about the GA list elsewhere and also stop attacking members of the IG caucus? Thank you. Jeanette Eric Dierker wrote: > Sorry, Not the first time I did not check. Mia Culpa, my bad. >  Our cool netiquette rules have been developed over a good period of time.  They are not nonsense.  In a very real respect/aspect they are as important as our Net Gov. of Protocals and Addressing.  While sometimes passion and conviction seem to require a breach of common courtesy it should never be the rule. We should all endeavor to share a mutual respect by abiding by civil society decency in communication. >  A very poor and not so bright man once spoke; "if only my neighbor could to me, and I could to her, be fair, honest and courteous, I scarcely say there would be little need for government or laws"  (ed - to a Jury, in a murder trial 1986) >  A big thank you to all those who monitor and domo, the world is a better place for your efforts. >  Eric > > --- On *Wed, 7/29/09, Lucy Lynch //* wrote: > > >     From: Lucy Lynch >     Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" >      >     Cc: "Avri Doria" >     Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 3:44 PM > >     On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > >      > Well that is very nice Avri.  And I agree with much of what you >     say.  However their are two people who were regular contributors >     suspended/censored from the list.  There are no recognized monitors >     and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU censored them. >     but with nothing open and transparent.  So your talk is not >     consistent with your actions as is the case generally with the GNSO. >     Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat.   So you really >     do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability to do and say >     opposite things. > >     Using full headers reveals: > >     List-Id: >     List-Archive: >     List-Help:      ?subject=help> >     List-Owner:      > >     List-Post:      > >     List-Subscribe:      ?subject=subscribe%20governance> >     List-Unsubscribe: >          ?subject=unsubscribe%20governance> > >     so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be needed > >     sorry for interrupting with technical info... > >      > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria      > wrote: >      > >      > >      > From: Avri Doria      > >      > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? >      > To: "Governance List"      > >      > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM >      > >      > >      > >      > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net >      >     wrote: >      > >      >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep it running it >     is up to you. >      > >      > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the list stays up >     and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. >      > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read that list on >     a regular basis. >      > >      > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately orderly and I read >     it regularly. >      > >      > >      > I do not think that responsibility extends to trying to make that >     list anything more then a list where people who subscribe and wish >     to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. In fact, >     without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the ICANN Board, >     I would see trying to change the list as out of scope for me.  That >     is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of trying to make >     the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what the GA was meant >     to be before it was decimated in the transition from DNSO to GNSO >     without a proper policy process - too many people in ICANN already >     usurp the right to make policy without proper process, and I am not >     about to become one of them  If the list wants to be more then a >     list or wants to spin off real organizations then it is the >     responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I would not >     hinder that effort. >      > >      > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the GNSO Council >     (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the background!).  At >     that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and at that point, >     if I want that list to be something more then a basket for >     complaints then it will be become my responsibility as a member of >     the list to try and do something.  Until then, I am just one of the >     caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and nothing more. >      > >      > a. >      > >      > >      > ____________________________________________________________ >      > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >      >      > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >      >      > >      > For all list information and functions, see: >      >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >      > ____________________________________________________________ >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >         governance at lists.cpsr.org >      >     To be removed from the list, send any message to: >         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >      > >     For all list information and functions, see: >         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >     -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > >     ____________________________________________________________ >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >          governance at lists.cpsr.org >      >     To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Aug 2 10:37:35 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:37:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shock threat to shut Skype In-Reply-To: <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> References: <2CBB6ED40D9E4AEDBDB09B823BD5F9A1@userPC> <0618A0EA-958A-4AC4-8D0D-9321954EB382@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A75A4AF.7040407@rits.org.br> Yes, I strongly agree. --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/07/2009, at 11:08 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Anyone agree with me that Skype, like medical care, is too essential a >> service to be left to the market... > > > Actually the lesson for discussion at the IGF is a very simple one; > "stick to open standards". This is why I have always preferred to use > SIP for Internet telephony, being an open standard that no single vendor > can lock up. If this Skype debacle achieves anything, it will be to > encourage more people to switch to SIP providers. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Aug 2 10:45:05 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:45:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> Message-ID: <4A75A671.6090603@rits.org.br> Well, big telcos or e-Bay, not much difference... but many voIP nets (both for-profit and non-profit) are built on SIP and using the open Asterisk system, and I think if this failure happens the open voIP alternative will receive a big boost. In this case, unfortunately there remains the problem of the best codecs still being proprietary, but this is not precluding Asterisk-based nets from spreading to the point that voIP hardware makers are building their devices Asterisk-ready. One (temporary?) advantage of the Skype net is that they manage to charge less than local commercial voIP services in several countries even for local calls -- due I guess to massive bulk contracts with data networks (the advantage of having that $$$ scale...). frt rgds --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > > On 1 Aug 2009, at 17:06, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Hmmm.. Maybe it is too big to fail... > > > my guess is that the incumbent telecom providers would love to see it > fail. plus 'too big to fail' just mean that rich people will feel some > pain if it fails, has nothing to do with the needs of LDCs, NGOs. > > one thought, since Zennstrom et al, still hold the license on the core > piece of technology, can't we assume that if they can't get sufficient > compensation from eBay, they will either come out with a new offering > themselves or find someone else to license it and put out a new offering? > > what is sad is that no one really believes that eBay can get it to work > with VoIP. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 2 11:06:12 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:06:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Licensing Dispute Threatens Future of Skype In-Reply-To: <4A75A671.6090603@rits.org.br> References: <18447FEC22F74575A0CDB5D44C437D9A@userPC> <07094605-69B8-4F80-AA73-BAB867BBD602@acm.org> <4A75A671.6090603@rits.org.br> Message-ID: In message <4A75A671.6090603 at rits.org.br>, at 11:45:05 on Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Carlos Afonso writes >One (temporary?) advantage of the Skype net is that they manage to >charge less than local commercial voIP services in several countries >even for local calls And their "supernode" system which apparently sometimes succeeds in making contact even if the end points cannot make direct contact. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Sun Aug 2 11:13:47 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:13:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Open Ltr. to Babtista (obscenity) In-Reply-To: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <93027.17337.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908020813x299787dejd4a3e86b9052e3c5@mail.gmail.com> Eric - forgive me but am not sure to what your apologizing about. I may have missed that message. Been very busy of late. Eric you have my thanks. You have been persistent in addressing the illegal censorship of myself and Jeff Williams from the GA by ICANN the U.S. government contractor all in the hope of covering up a frivolous and vexatious complaint that one of their employees used to work for a Nazi. My only concern right now is that Avri get Jeff Williams reinstated and right the wrongs she participated in. In any case I was interested in your commentaries on excrement below. Excrement is something I can speak to and a topic that should be of significance to the IP and governance communities. Throughout the course of human history excrement has been used by homoerectusas a means of making a political statement. The throwing of excrement, preferably ones own, at an enemy is a time honored tradition in various political protests through the ages. Excrement even defines territory. There are many species of wild animals who use excrement to make their territories. Fellow animals respect the demarcation points. Some beasts of prey mark their victims with excrement to prevent others from eating the remains. Much like the GNSO and ICANN. Anyway thats my two cents on the concept of shit. I'll have more political excrement later when I respond to Avri email on the GA. Right now I'm waiting for Jeff Williams to be reinstated. regards joe baptista On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I write in apology. I suffered ill intentions toward your comments earlier > this week. Without cause. In defense I read your posts in much hurry without > reflection or empathy. I considered them ill mannered and in bad taste. I > was wrong. > It is the subjects and actions you criticize that are disgusting and ill > mannered. Your proclamation of that is honorable. > (if we use euphemism - saying Homo Erectus excrement, the unwise may not > be warned against it -- if we label it *SHIT* -- we may spare them from > disastrous disease) Cute, coy well mannered talk often masks real and > present dangers, leading to suffering of our brothers. > > A wise Chief Justice of the US Supremes once pointed out "I do not know the > definition of obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (or some such thing) > > Well I have just seen it again. The interchange between Doria and . > Making disgustingly disparaging remarks against those who carry on the > entrepreneurial spirit and succeed. Their unabashed hatred and contempt for > those who have the accident of being wealthy would make Marx - industrial > proletariat revolution and Ho Chi Minh - agrarian proletariat revolution, > blush, and it creates tyrants like Lenin and Pol Pot. The absolute ignorance > of and disdain for free enterprise and freedom to fail and choice is truly > abhorrent and obscene. Their scary thinly veiled stated belief that we > should turn the reins of technological development and user choice over to > their kind of Crats is truly dangerous to society. That kind of hate speech > should be censored here. > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 12:33:12 2009 From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:33:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: 'Fake UK sites' trick consumers Message-ID: <20090803_163313_059705.kboakye@gmail.com> Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it. ** 'Fake UK sites' trick consumers ** Trading standards officers say consumers are being tricked into buying fake goods by companies pretending to be based in the UK. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/business/8178959.stm > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all in one daily e-mail < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > ** Disclaimer ** The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified. If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From llynch at civil-tongue.net Mon Aug 3 14:35:06 2009 From: llynch at civil-tongue.net (Lucy Lynch) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN listening? In-Reply-To: <4A762C11.9AB6FB8F@ix.netcom.com> References: <150105.64732.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4A762C11.9AB6FB8F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: not sure how I'm included in this discussion as all I did was send a note about hoe technolgy worked - meant to be helpful. - Lucy On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Eric and all, > > Ditto! I am always more than willing to read/listen to whatever > Jeanette or Lucy have to say as much as anyone else. I would hope > that everyone would be thinking likewise... Cross posting is a > contrivance that is counter inclusive and therefore often a evil that > should be rejected, IMO... However be advised, I am not willing > to give Jeanette or Lucy more consideration than anyone else... > > cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> >> This mail has been getting me to wonder; "what does Jeanette Hofmann > do regarding IG that is more relevant than a General Assembly attached > to Generic Names as part of the closest thing we have to IG??" I > suppose her objection to discussing GA here has something more deep, > closer to a prohibition on cross posting. Something about dividing > and conquering. Something about not letting the unruly masses know > what is going on across the board. But perhaps there is something > that most of us are not aware of that Ms. Hoffmann and Lucy Lynch are > involved in. If that is the case I would sure appreciate being > updated. > > --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" > > Cc: "Lucy Lynch" > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 5:48 AM > > Hi, can you please take discussions about the GA list > elsewhere and also stop attacking members of the IG caucus? > Thank you. Jeanette > > Eric Dierker wrote: > > Sorry, Not the first time I did not check. Mia Culpa, my > bad. > > Our cool netiquette rules have been developed over a good > period of time. They are not nonsense. In a very real > respect/aspect they are as important as our Net Gov. of > Protocals and Addressing. While sometimes passion and > conviction seem to require a breach of common courtesy it > should never be the rule. We should all endeavor to share a > mutual respect by abiding by civil society decency in > communication. > > A very poor and not so bright man once spoke; "if only my > neighbor could to me, and I could to her, be fair, honest > and courteous, I scarcely say there would be little need for > government or laws" (ed - to a Jury, in a murder trial > 1986) > > A big thank you to all those who monitor and domo, the > world is a better place for your efforts. > > Eric > > > > --- On *Wed, 7/29/09, Lucy Lynch > //* wrote: > > > > > > From: Lucy Lynch > > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" > > > > Cc: "Avri Doria" > > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 3:44 PM > > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > > > Well that is very nice Avri. And I agree with much > of what you > > say. However their are two people who were regular > contributors > > suspended/censored from the list. There are no > recognized monitors > > and the majordomo is hidden. That is all on you. YOU > censored them. > > but with nothing open and transparent. So your talk > is not > > consistent with your actions as is the case generally > with the GNSO. > > Your governmental process is backroom and by fiat. > So you really > > do epitomize ICANNs lack of accountability and ability > to do and say > > opposite things. > > > > Using full headers reveals: > > > > List-Id: > > List-Archive: > > > List-Help: > > ?subject=help> > > > List-Owner: > > > > > > List-Post: > > > > > > List-Subscribe: > > ?subject=subscribe%20governance> > > > List-Unsubscribe: > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe%20governance> > > > > > so, not a majordomo list - different commands will be > needed > > > > sorry for interrupting with technical info... > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/29/09, Avri Doria > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Avri Doria > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN listening? > > > To: "Governance List" > > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 10:44 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2009, at 03:35, > cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> it is not up to the participants in the GA to keep > it running it > > is up to you. > > > > > > I take that as the responsibility to make sure the > list stays up > > and remains orderly, for some definition of orderly. > > > Additionally I take it as my responsibility to read > that list on > > a regular basis. > > > > > > The list is up, it functions, it is moderately > orderly and I read > > it regularly. > > > > > > > > > I do not think that responsibility extends to > trying to make that > > list anything more then a list where people who > subscribe and wish > > to comment on ICANN related issues can do so in peace. > In fact, > > without a decision of the GNSO Council approved by the > ICANN Board, > > I would see trying to change the list as out of scope > for me. That > > is, I do not see my responsibility as being one of > trying to make > > the GA list re-evolve into anything resembling what > the GA was meant > > to be before it was decimated in the transition from > DNSO to GNSO > > without a proper policy process - too many people in > ICANN already > > usurp the right to make policy without proper process, > and I am not > > about to become one of them If the list wants to be > more then a > > list or wants to spin off real organizations then it > is the > > responsibility of those on that list to do so, and I > would not > > hinder that effort. > > > > > > In a few months I will no longer be a member of the > GNSO Council > > (I can hear some people already rejoicing in the > background!). At > > that point I will remain a member of the GA list, and > at that point, > > if I want that list to be something more then a basket > for > > complaints then it will be become my responsibility as > a member of > > the list to try and do something. Until then, I am > just one of the > > caretakers of the GA list who keep it running and > nothing more. > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, 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 >> > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 5 13:28:31 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:28:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DOC044.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 180129 bytes Desc: DOC044.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT74839.txt URL: From vanda at uol.com.br Wed Aug 5 19:17:24 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:17:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM To: igf_members at intgovforum.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA FYI 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kpeters at tldainc.org Wed Aug 5 22:39:33 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:39:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> Message-ID: <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> I believe the US congress wants to keep ICANN on a short leash internally, but impose a mandate on them, withing those contraints, to be international in scope and understanding through bottom-up listening. It can well be argued that they have failed in much of that listening so far, but this is how I justify the two apparently divergent positions. Nations and groups of nations should feel free to set up their own DNS including whatever they like. No one is constrained to live with ICANN except the US, and many of us use other DNS for a wider view of the internet, too. The main caution is to work not to allow collisions in the namespace. Given the trend in American government, it is not so clear that you will always be able to see a free press through ICANN and you may well be better off with your own. -Karl E. Peters Quoting Vanda Scartezini : > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > Vanda Scartezini > POLO Consultores Associados > & IT Trend > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 > Mob + 5511 8181.1464 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM > To: igf_members at intgovforum.org > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > > FYI > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Aug 5 23:22:37 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:22:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:28, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > FYI > > wolfgang > > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. and of course ICANN would have to agree (that is the Board not the CEO) don't know if they will. what happens if they don't? and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Aug 6 02:34:20 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:34:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> Message-ID: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. This is a *very* complicated issue. First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these matters.) Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as good as most of the better places. What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they are done. I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. --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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 6 03:03:16 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:03:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and yes, we are not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what internet governance might mean. When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember coming up with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially disinterested in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me otherwise. To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather than a battle over an organisation that is doing something else. On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician > in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled > by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and > I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs > and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be > an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. > Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to > receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions > about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones > Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN > which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these > matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I > saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal > entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane > national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would > have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted > under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract > with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the > laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants > but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It > would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing > to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in > modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of > trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in > restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to > undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity > when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing > in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our > modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has > operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN > merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend > to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not > all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of > ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded > laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. > (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the > most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we > search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that > California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as > good as most of the better places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the > US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost > packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish > into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very > pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed > to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name > resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular > that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately > translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any > query source or query subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, > several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important > than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done > we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they > are done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed > if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to > have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Aug 6 03:32:46 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:32:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193D0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/technology/090801/icann-domain-names-internet ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 07:08:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <280807.79730.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I like this Karl.  I only wish the jobs to be done were nice and black and white.  They are not.  The variations on how packets are not lost, how TCPs are conducted and namespaces resolve are quite clearly variations that benefit some and do not benefit others.  Which tools we use and who we contract with to provide them are not clerical issues.   The Legal Jurisdictional suite which houses ICANN is immensely important on issues of free speech and stability of the host.  Even your lawsuit shows that any less of a compassionate legal system would have had you on your ear long before any progress was made. Perhaps you have not wrangled legally inside a truly communistic country, or been jailed for supporting bloggers. This is the only explanation for your cavalier approach to where operations are housed. Also you fail to make out the importance of that California/US tax structure that would be turned inside out in a jurisdictional with no 501(c) 3 type exemptions and a 50% tax base with 100% uptakes on luxuries like the internet.   Karl your utopia must wait for a real place. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, igf_members at intgovforum.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 6:34 AM On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >   I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. This is a *very* complicated issue. First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move.  Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these matters.) Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.)  Contracts (and settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted.  A while back I saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane national laws.  That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the laws of country B.  That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs.  It would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing to do with internet stability.  ICANN is a medieval trade guild in modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in restraint of trade."  The point here is that do we really want to undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California.  (In the US, corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law.  ICANN merely has a Federal tax exemption.)  Since California is my home I tend to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not all that bad.  I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the most clearly articulated of those laws.)  I would suspect that if we search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as good as most of the better places. What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish into a poof of money-scented smoke.  The main loss would be a very pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they are done. I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to have performed before we undertake to move ICANN.         --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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 07:24:04 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <608888.19474.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ian please enlighten me on this subject of asking the right questions.  Where some silly folks gave me my degrees  the Only Question was to "Always Question Authority".   The biggest problem around Internet Governance is that all the Questioneers seem to be claiming Authority.   As to your "huge dilema" about asking the simple question "what we need for internet governance".  I will give you a secret:  Simply get up every morning and quite simply ask it. How loud is your choice. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl Auerbach" Cc: igf_members at intgovforum.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:03 AM I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and yes, we are not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what internet governance might mean. When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember coming up with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially disinterested in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me otherwise. To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather than a battle over an organisation that is doing something else. On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>   I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician > in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled > by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and > I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs > and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be > an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. >   Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to > receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions > about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones > Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN > which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these > matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.)  Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted.  A while back I > saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal > entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane > national laws.  That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would > have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted > under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract > with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the > laws of country B.  That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants > but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs.  It > would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing > to do with internet stability.  ICANN is a medieval trade guild in > modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of > trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in > restraint of trade."  The point here is that do we really want to > undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity > when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing > in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our > modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has > operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California.  (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law.  ICANN > merely has a Federal tax exemption.)  Since California is my home I tend > to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not > all that bad.  I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of > ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded > laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. > (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the > most clearly articulated of those laws.)  I would suspect that if we > search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that > California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as > good as most of the better places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the > US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost > packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish > into a poof of money-scented smoke.  The main loss would be a very > pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed > to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name > resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular > that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately > translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any > query source or query subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, > several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important > than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done > we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they > are done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed > if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to > have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 07:37:45 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:37:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> Message-ID: <874c02a20908060437y1024ca5cre433c6ac8203d7c0@mail.gmail.com> You are right Karl - what is important is to prevent collisions. That was at one time to be the job of the TLDA - the organization who's email address your using. Unfortunately the TLDA has ended up being a joke and a significant failure in the eyes of it's own membership. When I bootstrapped the TLDA two years ago with you we had over 30 members. Today you have five left. I point these difficult facts out to you in case anyone mistakes your comments for informed commentary. It is difficult to be considered informed when the organization one represent is a failure. cheers joe baptista On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM, wrote: > I believe the US congress wants to keep ICANN on a short leash > internally, but impose a mandate on them, withing those contraints, to be > international in scope and understanding through bottom-up listening. It can > well be argued that they have failed in much of that listening so far, but > this is how I justify the two apparently divergent positions. > Nations and groups of nations should feel free to set up their own DNS > including whatever they like. No one is constrained to live with ICANN > except the US, and many of us use other DNS for a wider view of the > internet, too. > The main caution is to work not to allow collisions in the namespace. > Given the trend in American government, it is not so clear that you will > always be able to see a free press through ICANN and you may well be better > off with your own. > -Karl E. Peters > > > > Quoting Vanda Scartezini : > > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> POLO Consultores Associados >> & IT Trend >> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 >> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. >> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 >> Mob + 5511 8181.1464 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM >> To: igf_members at intgovforum.org >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA >> >> >> FYI >> >> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 07:40:35 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:40:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is > theirs, all theirs? > Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Aug 6 08:22:31 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:22:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ian, On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and > yes, we are > not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what > internet > governance might mean. This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in his helpful post? Just wondering, Bill > > When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember > coming up > with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and > incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially > disinterested > in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me > otherwise. > > To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an > examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather > than a > battle over an organisation that is doing something else. > > > > > On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: > >> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>> the >>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>> Congress in the >>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >> >> This is a *very* complicated issue. >> >> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >> politician >> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >> labeled >> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >> >> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >> (and >> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >> TLDs >> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >> be >> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >> things. >> >> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >> move. >> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >> questions >> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >> Jones >> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >> matters.) >> >> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >> contracts >> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >> the >> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >> arcane >> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >> would >> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >> interpreted >> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >> contract >> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >> registrants >> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >> It >> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >> >> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >> nothing >> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >> combination in >> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >> entity >> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >> doing >> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >> nature? >> >> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >> tend >> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >> is not >> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >> of >> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >> >> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >> minded >> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >> that >> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >> as >> good as most of the better places. >> >> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >> the >> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >> >> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >> vanish >> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >> >> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >> supposed >> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >> particular >> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >> any >> query source or query subject. >> >> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >> important >> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >> >> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >> done >> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >> are done. >> >> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >> succeed >> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >> >> --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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 ca at rits.org.br Thu Aug 6 08:31:25 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:31:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> Yes, like the telephone is a Canadian invention and this is why until today Canadians control the entire worldwide telephony network... or the Scottish control the entire worldwide penicillin market. :) --c.a. Joe Baptista wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is >> theirs, all theirs? >> > > Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to > DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the > DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. > > cheers > joe baptista > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 08:55:59 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:55:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Yes, like the telephone is a Canadian invention and this is why until today > Canadians control the entire worldwide telephony network... or the Scottish > control the entire worldwide penicillin market. :) That is not what I said. Clearly the DNS and the Internet for that matter is a U.S. invention. However the subject of control is an architectural issue. In telecommunication control is a centralized affair. On the Internet control is in the hands of the end users. However the lack control does not change the fact the U.S. through ARPA and later DARPA build the Internet we have and use today. cheers joe baptista > > > --c.a. > > Joe Baptista wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS >>> is >>> theirs, all theirs? >>> >>> >> Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to >> DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that >> the >> DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. >> >> cheers >> joe baptista >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 09:37:40 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:37:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Request to join your IGF Workshop on the Development Agenda for Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0C26C50E-281C-4550-93A9-87C08A8FD09E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <701af9f70908050920j3e882aa3h6555a6c4c8a45055@mail.gmail.com> <0C26C50E-281C-4550-93A9-87C08A8FD09E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <701af9f70908060637o34564f71u1c21578e23e1e095@mail.gmail.com> Hi Bill, Let's start with this video interview from the OECD Ministerial in Seoul last year on the Future of the Internet Economy after my presentation: http://stream.elon.edu/stream/predictions/oecd_2008/Fouad_Riaz_Bajwa.mov and after watching it read on: Internet Governance should be primarily oriented to realising the information society opportunity for moving towards achieving the ideals and goals of social and human development and I was nominated by the IGC and elected to the MAG, why, to join, support and strengthen the Civil Society and voice the development aspects in the Internet Governance process with regards to linking IG with Human Rights, counter the monopolistic Financial Modalities and underplay with the developing world by the Private Sector, encourage Corporate Social Responsibilities with regards to the Internet, adequate and appropriate transfer of technology, voting for pro-development national ICT policies and to help develop the vision of the process towards an open, inclusive and mutual consensus for an Internet Governance Development Agenda. From Markus to all members of the MAG, my interventions have been evident though these are at a very basic level but I have stepped on the stone to contribute to the process. As discussed with the MAG generically, we are hopefully looking forward to the IGF secretariat allowing the workshop to span into a three hour session and feed into the main sessions, though this is a proposal at this stage. This would create the stage for improving the future interventions on such a workshop. As this is an open space and is not restricted by one and anyone should be able to join in at any stage despite the fact that it has been conducted for a number of years now, I believe in new stimulation and people that can play a definitive role in furthering a certain aspect. I come from the developing world, that is my first understanding to feed into Internet Governance. We face real issues of how the Internet affects us politically, socially and economically. We too are stranded by the control and influence of the business world and the governments bending towards commercial interests due to FDI and ODI but at the same time, we are becoming more and more aware of the social potential of the Internet and the vastness this area offers for development concerns. Though I don't want us to act as the guinea pigs for testing, instead, I believe that we should be aware of all the development issues that influences the governance of our part of the Internet. I am sure that I had clearly conveyed to you during the brief meetings we had in Geneva that I 100% pro-development agenda of the IGF and have the motive to carry out every effort that can stimulate the IGF process to adopt the Internet Governance for Development Agenda. Your workshop could be that first step and that is my initial internet. Secondly, if this workshop has shared something meaningful for the past two years and it hasn't been conveyed meaningfully into the IGF process and has not received the recognition and adoption to lead towards the formulation of that agenda, we have to both stimulate it to be recognized and include more people as the development agenda is the people's agenda and there is no limit to the amount of people that can be part of this agenda. My ideas about a development agenda is very clear, that agenda that affects my country and all the developing countries of the world. We have a need, we have a voice and we have a focus that the IGF one day shall carry the development agenda and come up as a meaningful process to facilitate the development process of its member countries. The Internet will always continue to be evolving and we will always continue to face and counter the issues that arise and that demote our right to development utilizing the Internet. The political economy of the Internet is as equal to the developed as to the developing. Our voice, our needs and our future with regards to the governance of the Internet and how it will affect our governments, businesses and civil society at large will be an issue to continue to intervene on. An open, inclusive and collaborative space is that one which lets new faces and new voices be heard. My country's problems are not necessarily the same as those of Brazil and my region of South Asia's problems are not similar to those of the region of Europe. My country is not a member of the OECD and the OECD policies are that the developed world abides by and influences development policies of the World Bank and IMF towards our regions and countries. Bill, the WSIS called for the Internet to be be politically driven to shape the people centred and development oriented Information Society.It is crucial for us members of the Civil Society to pursue dialogue, capacity building of stakeholders, policy interventions and supporting research and advocacy campaigns aimed at demanding the establishment of a real development agenda in the area of ICTs with respect to IG. We have to make the WSIS development outcome and impact. We have to bring in more CS members to equal the membership of MAG in comparison with Governments and Private Sector. We have to take every possible initiative together that encourages the identification and realization of the development agenda. Five people alone will not be the only simulators, there will be many of us and I want to join the discussions meaningfully from South Asia, from Pakistan, from Civil Society unless this is the usual academic and research activity. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Fouad, > Hope this message finds you well... > Thanks for your interest in my workshop proposal.  As you can see, at > present I have five speakers lined up already, plus myself of course as the > moderator.  I am also waiting to hear on another invitation that would bring > us to six speakers plus moderator.  My experience with the first two > workshops I organized on this topic clearly indicates that in either > configuration we already have too many speakers with two little time > available to each, especially when I add in the back and forth dialogue > between speakers after their presentations and then the Q&A.  As such, I > cannot squeeze in another without seriously cutting into the time of each, > which is not the way to treat senior policy makers etc. > However, I understand that there is some discussion of an option I mentioned > in the proposal to expand the workshop to a three hour slot.  Were that to > occur, this would allow me to add more speakers.  I gather that there are > some stakeholder groups that would expect to be included in an expanded > event, which could result in some new crowding and difficulties in managing > the balance.  But in principle and a priori, it may indeed become possible > in this case to include your ideas in the mix.  So let's see what is decided > by people in a position to decide things and then go from there. > In the meanwhile, perhaps you could help me get my head around the expanded > scenario by sharing just what your ideas on the development agenda proposal > are?  Bear in mind, this is not a workshop on "development is good" > generically, but rather on a particular set of institutional architectural > options for moving forward.  I'm not familiar with your thinking on the > ideas we've been discussing over the past few years, so it would help me a > lot to know. > Thanks again, > Bill > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote: > > Dear Fouad, > thanks for the email. > William Drake had this innitative that I am happy to contribute to, so he is > the right person to answer your request. > Best regards > Olga Cavalli > > 2009/8/5 Fouad Bajwa >> >> Dear William and Olga, >> >> I wanted to extend my participation in the workshop organized by >> yourselves titled "316. Implementing the WSIS Principles: A >> Development Agenda for Internet Governance" as either a speaker and/or >> moderator. >> >> As William knows about my interest and interventions at the open >> consultations on the subject in May 2009, and, furthering the Internet >> Governance for Development within the IGF process, I would like to >> equally participate and provide considerable input valuable to the >> event. >> >> I look forward to your comments. >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > -- > Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing. > www.south-ssig.com.ar > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and >   Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 pimienta at funredes.org Thu Aug 6 09:56:51 2009 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:56:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> Message-ID: <200908061357.n76DvHsf007291@funredes.org> >But I don't see a reason to not continue to state the need to ICANN >to become really international. Was not the creation of IGF during the WSIS process a final (and difficult) decision reached to find a compromise on the pressure on the US from the rest of the world to release grasp on ICANN, on one side, and the reluctance from the US to accept changes, on the other one? Was not IGF supposed to eventually help a decision on that very subject? I also remember that many thought that this "solution" was just a manner to earn time by making people discuss ... and take no decision. IGF may have evolve das a structure beyond this initial background but, if my memory is correct, I wonder if IGF should not this time go beyong discussion and try to reach a consensus for a formal and public statement in favor of the internationalization of ICANN. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kpeters at tldainc.org Thu Aug 6 10:30:26 2009 From: kpeters at tldainc.org (kpeters at tldainc.org) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:30:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA (r.e. the TLDA) In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908060437y1024ca5cre433c6ac8203d7c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <20090805213933.19h94mijw4ck4gw8@www.tldainc.org> <874c02a20908060437y1024ca5cre433c6ac8203d7c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090806093026.zwpfd0q4ys84084w@www.tldainc.org> I made no comment on behalf of the TLDA in my original post, READ it! I will say, though, that there were no members then, except that we included all those who had been involved years ago when it died for lack of enthusiasm upon the theft of a successful .BIZ from Leah Gallegos and the denial of .WEB to Chris Ambler. Many of those initial members had gotten out of the business altogether in that time. Some of those have dropped off but others have joined and with a new interactive website, including its own secure voting mechanism, we are no longer susceptible to fraud, as we once were. In your own way, you helped to inspire that move. We now have only 20 people managing their own TLDs in our group but there is much more participation from the few than we ever had before. Policies are being drafted and preparations are being made to stand up and offer our expected services. We are not there now, but ICANN has not been doing what it was designed for either, and they have a captive audience that pays them money to stay in the game. I would much rather defend TLDA (TLDAINC.ORG) than ICANN! -Karl E. Peters Quoting Joe Baptista : > You are right Karl - what is important is to prevent collisions. That was at > one time to be the job of the TLDA - the organization who's email address > your using. > > Unfortunately the TLDA has ended up being a joke and a significant failure > in the eyes of it's own membership. When I bootstrapped the TLDA two years > ago with you we had over 30 members. Today you have five left. > > I point these difficult facts out to you in case anyone mistakes your > comments for informed commentary. It is difficult to be considered informed > when the organization one represent is a failure. > > cheers > joe baptista > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM, wrote: > >> I believe the US congress wants to keep ICANN on a short leash >> internally, but impose a mandate on them, withing those contraints, to be >> international in scope and understanding through bottom-up listening. It can >> well be argued that they have failed in much of that listening so far, but >> this is how I justify the two apparently divergent positions. >> Nations and groups of nations should feel free to set up their own DNS >> including whatever they like. No one is constrained to live with ICANN >> except the US, and many of us use other DNS for a wider view of the >> internet, too. >> The main caution is to work not to allow collisions in the namespace. >> Given the trend in American government, it is not so clear that you will >> always be able to see a free press through ICANN and you may well be better >> off with your own. >> -Karl E. Peters >> >> >> >> Quoting Vanda Scartezini : >> >> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>> >>> Vanda Scartezini >>> POLO Consultores Associados >>> & IT Trend >>> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 >>> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. >>> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 >>> Mob + 5511 8181.1464 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:29 PM >>> To: igf_members at intgovforum.org >>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA >>> >>> >>> FYI >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >> > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & > Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 11:51:04 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 20:51:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society Message-ID: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> Dear Friends, As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from the developed world perspective. I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the grass roots and members of the IGC. I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 13:43:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society In-Reply-To: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective on the net.   The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: From: Fouad Bajwa Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM Dear Friends, As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from the developed world perspective. I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the grass roots and members of the IGC. I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Thu Aug 6 14:22:52 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 01:22:52 +0700 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance Development Agenda from Civil Society In-Reply-To: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200908070122.53118.nhklein@gmx.net> On Friday, 7 August 2009 00:43:07 Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  > What makes you think that ones geographic location determines their > perspective on the net. Of course it does. > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on > the Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of > the lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. I do not know where you live and work to speak about the lower Mekong or Puebla. And it is also not just that the Northeasten Arizona is different from most other places in the USA - where more policy power resides. I am much in agreement with Fouad. Greetings from the lower Mekong, Norbert Klein Phnom Penh > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial: Different Bits of Information – Questions for All to Consider – Sunday, 1.8.2009 http://tinyurl.com/mlo4dp (To read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 6 15:34:09 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:34:09 +1000 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Bill, Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except that in suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be suggesting that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and useful Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is a good step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular incomplete and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be some sort of useful building block in future internet governance, that would be a good start IMHO. I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps suggest to me where you think this is so. Ian On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >> yes, we are >> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >> internet >> governance might mean. > > This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the > JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's > linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should > exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to > continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in > his helpful post? > > Just wondering, > > Bill > >> >> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >> coming up >> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >> disinterested >> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me >> otherwise. >> >> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >> than a >> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >> >> >> >> >> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >> >>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>> the >>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>> Congress in the >>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>> >>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>> >>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>> politician >>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>> labeled >>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>> >>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>> (and >>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>> TLDs >>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>> be >>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>> things. >>> >>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>> move. >>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>> questions >>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>> Jones >>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >>> matters.) >>> >>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>> contracts >>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>> the >>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>> arcane >>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>> would >>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>> interpreted >>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>> contract >>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>> registrants >>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>> It >>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>> >>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>> nothing >>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>> combination in >>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>> entity >>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>> doing >>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>> nature? >>> >>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>> tend >>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>> is not >>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>> of >>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>> >>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>> minded >>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>> that >>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>> as >>> good as most of the better places. >>> >>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>> the >>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >>> >>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>> vanish >>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>> >>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>> supposed >>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>> particular >>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>> any >>> query source or query subject. >>> >>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>> important >>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>> >>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>> done >>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >>> are done. >>> >>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>> succeed >>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>> >>> --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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 15:54:29 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:24:29 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality on the iPhone Message-ID: <4A7B34F5.5000400@gmail.com> http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/fcc-probes-apples-rejection-google-voice-iphone-039 "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [USA] late Friday launched an investigation into Apple's rejection of Google Voice for the iPhone, and the removal of similar software from the App Store." "In a letter sent to Apple, the FCC asked the company why it turned down Google Voice for the iPhone and pulled several other Google Voice-related programs from the iPhone's only sanctioned online mart. The FCC also sent similar letters to both AT&T -- Apple's exclusive carrier partner in the U.S. -- and Google, asking both firms to provide more information on the issue." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 15:59:03 2009 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:59:03 -0600 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/8/6, Ian Peter : > Hi Bill, > > Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except that in > suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be suggesting > that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and useful > Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is a good > step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular incomplete > and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be some sort > of useful building block in future internet governance, that would be a good > start IMHO. > > I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps suggest > to me where you think this is so. > > Ian > > > On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" > wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>> yes, we are >>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>> internet >>> governance might mean. >> >> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >> JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's >> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should >> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >> continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >> his helpful post? >> >> Just wondering, >> >> Bill >> >>> >>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>> coming up >>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>> disinterested >>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me >>> otherwise. >>> >>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>> than a >>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>> the >>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>> Congress in the >>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>>> >>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>> >>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>> politician >>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>> labeled >>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>> >>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>> (and >>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>> TLDs >>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>> be >>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>> things. >>>> >>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>> move. >>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>> questions >>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>> Jones >>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >>>> matters.) >>>> >>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>> contracts >>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>> the >>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>> arcane >>>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>> would >>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>> interpreted >>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>> contract >>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >>>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>> registrants >>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>> It >>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>> >>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>> nothing >>>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>> combination in >>>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>> entity >>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>> doing >>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>> nature? >>>> >>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>>> tend >>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>> is not >>>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>> of >>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>> >>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>> minded >>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>> that >>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>> as >>>> good as most of the better places. >>>> >>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>> the >>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >>>> >>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>> vanish >>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>> >>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>> supposed >>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>> particular >>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>> any >>>> query source or query subject. >>>> >>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>> important >>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>> >>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>> done >>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >>>> are done. >>>> >>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>> succeed >>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>> >>>> --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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 > -- Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil Jaco Aizenman L. Presidente Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF ------------------------ My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-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 Thu Aug 6 17:41:33 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 16:41:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40908061441r445d6663qfeca5d4d70751304@mail.gmail.com> I find most of Karl's assessment agreeable. I have always predicated my thinking on the ICANN ecosystem on three pillars 1) ICANN is an American corporation organized under the laws of California and, thusly, subscribes to a certain cultural sensitivity; Karl's reference to a "combination in restraint of trade" is an apt descriptor for the overiding interest 2) The USG has declared a "national security interest" of the Internet which gives political cover for any and all efforts in the Congress of the United States to keep ICANN tethered 3) ICANN's standing in the world is based on some contracts with the USG - the "pyramid of contracts" term used by Karl is definitive - and will remain only to the extent those contracts remain in force. I participate thru the At-large community in ICANN affairs where my goal has always been to give a voice where it might not have otherwise been heard and to moderate impacts of certain decisions on some groups. I have always felt that ICANN - the corporation - needs the At-Large more than it lets on precisely because of the difficulties it finds presenting itself to the world as a global public good. The Europeans are troubled that the US has pride of place in ICANN and they are left out of the decision-making. They are now insistently demanding a place at the table. Their sleight of hand here is that they are dressing up the proposal by seeking to draft significant others - read those to be Brazil, China plus plus - to their cause via their I-20 coalition proposal. So while I agree with Karl that the real issue ought to be about the jobs that must be done, realpolitik says it does matter where the job is done and who's responsible for doing that job. It matters because of what Faoud terms the "development agenda" that "Third World countries" would wish to promote. Those of us who struggle on the periphery and see the possibilities of the Internet for our own national economic and social developemnt also think we ought to have a voice in matters that would affect us even more acutely than formerly. I understand and share his contextual sensibilities. It matters because the EC has recognized the critical importance of the Internet to social and economic well-being of its citizens and is impatient to act to protect what it perceives as their rights. It especially matters because not only does the American cognoscenti shares the views of the EU but a significant segment of these have added a slight twist. They acknowledge the Internet is now integral to the operations of the war-making and waging apparatus of the state, no question. But they have also declared that continued economic vitality and viability and the social ascendancy of the United States are national security interests second to none. My American experience says that invoking the national security interest in any public policy issue makes that issue a "third rail" in American polity. Which speaks to Karl's "man/woman who lost the Internet" sensitivity of the politicians. History repeats itself. Bone up on what transpired re the Treaty of Tordesillas - a Papal Bull - of 1494. And take note of the French King's - Francis I - alleged grouse; "Am I not a Christian and Prince?". Carlton Samuels On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > >> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in the >> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >> > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician in > the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled by an > opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and I > am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs and > address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be an ICANN > without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. > Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to receive > that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions about the > rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones Day, the law > firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN which would find > itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I saw a > draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal entities in > multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane national laws. > That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would have a contract > with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted under the laws of > country A and another registrar would have a contract with an ICANN-clone in > country B that would be interpreted under the laws of country B. That would > mean not only uncertainty for registrants but would create a kind of forum > shopping for those who want TLDs. It would be a legal Gordian knot without > a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing to > do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in modern garb > that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of trade (and > trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in restraint of > trade." The point here is that do we really want to undertake the vast > effort of creating a new kind of international entity when the particular > job being done is not one that really deserves doing in the first place and > which tends to run contrary to not only our modern notions of a fair and > open marketplace but also which has operated on principles of a rather > oligarchical and anti-democratic nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN merely > has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend to look on > the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not all that bad. > I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of ICANN as an > instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded laws > about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. (Mind you, I > had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the most clearly > articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we search the world for > good homes for bodies of internet governance that California would be, > except for the fact that it is part of the US, as good as most of the better > places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the US > it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost packet > or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish into a > poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very pliant tool for > trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed to > have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name resolution > system of the internet is stable, which means in particular that DNS name > query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS > name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query > subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, several > bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important than the > question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done we > will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they are > done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed if > we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to have > performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Aug 6 17:44:29 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:44:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <280807.79730.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <280807.79730.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A7B4EBD.3020407@cavebear.com> On 08/06/2009 04:08 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I like this Karl. I only wish the jobs to be done were nice and black > and white. They are not. I disagree. Years ago I started to enumerate the jobs that we need to have performed. Take a look at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/apfi.htm There is another formulation at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/public/ntia-july-7-2006-statement.html (Scan down for "Answering the Specific Questions" and then either search (or better yet, read) your way down to "Form follows function" As I see it there are many jobs (e.g. protocol parameter assignment, TLD record updates, root zone file preparation and dissemination, etc) that could be handed over to several clerical bodies. Then there are some policy jobs (that are might be addressed by the kind of notice-and-comment process used by many administrative bodies when the make rules. Then there are the very highly policy loaded jobs - such as IP address allocation policy, whois, and TLD policy - that might be worth more elaborate structure - with one entity for each problem (*not* one entity that handles multiple problems.) By-the-way, there is a subtle point about my metric i.e. that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. That subtle point is this: That I don't think we ought to care very much about the performance and quality of the system through which registrars and registries do their front office business of selling names - there are customers enough, and money enough behind those customers, to drive good standards of performance. But from the perspective of internet governance that reflects the concerns of internet users the quality of the process of resolving names, i.e. the back-office operations of registries, is what is critical. --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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Aug 6 17:52:09 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:52:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <365627BA-8ECC-42BA-B487-7A1137A77FA3@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Ian, Karl appears to be saying, among other things, that it would be difficult to impossible to break the USG link and/or relocate, that California law is pretty good, etc. And you were equating the USG link with colonial domination to be resisted. These seem to me to be two rather different views, so I wasn't clear how you could embrace both. Meanwhile, to those of us actually involved in the beast, it is becoming increasingly clear that an ICANN accountable only to itself would be an utter disaster for civil society. When it's posted, have a look at Brenden's ex parte filing with NTIA which concludes that IGP believes ICANN's disregard for CS and its own nominal procedural protections "constitute a fundamental inability of ICANN to satisfy the conditions enumerated in the JPA." Best, Bill On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except > that in > suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be > suggesting > that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and > useful > Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is > a good > step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular > incomplete > and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be > some sort > of useful building block in future internet governance, that would > be a good > start IMHO. > > I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps > suggest > to me where you think this is so. > > Ian > > > On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" > > wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>> yes, we are >>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>> internet >>> governance might mean. >> >> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >> JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's >> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN >> should >> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >> continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >> his helpful post? >> >> Just wondering, >> >> Bill >> >>> >>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>> coming up >>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>> disinterested >>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to >>> convince me >>> otherwise. >>> >>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>> than a >>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>> the >>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>> Congress in the >>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to >>>>> not >>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really >>>>> international. >>>> >>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>> >>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>> politician >>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>> labeled >>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>> >>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>> (and >>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>> TLDs >>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>> be >>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>> things. >>>> >>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>> move. >>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>> questions >>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>> Jones >>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on >>>> these >>>> matters.) >>>> >>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>> contracts >>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>> the >>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while >>>> back I >>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>> arcane >>>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>> would >>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>> interpreted >>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>> contract >>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under >>>> the >>>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>> registrants >>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>> It >>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>> >>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>> nothing >>>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>> combination in >>>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>> entity >>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>> doing >>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>> nature? >>>> >>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>>> tend >>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>> is not >>>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>> of >>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>> >>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>> minded >>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of >>>> the >>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if >>>> we >>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>> that >>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>> as >>>> good as most of the better places. >>>> >>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>> the >>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it >>>> must. >>>> >>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>> vanish >>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>> >>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>> supposed >>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>> particular >>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and >>>> accurately >>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>> any >>>> query source or query subject. >>>> >>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>> important >>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>> >>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>> done >>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical >>>> and >>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where >>>> they >>>> are done. >>>> >>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>> succeed >>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want >>>> to >>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>> >>>> --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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 6 20:04:50 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:04:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.co m> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090807000456.B17986782F@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear Joe, some more nationalistic bragging. At 14:55 06/08/2009, Joe Baptista wrote: >On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Carlos Afonso ><ca at rits.org.br> wrote: >Yes, like the telephone is a Canadian invention and this is why >until today Canadians control the entire worldwide telephony >network... or the Scottish control the entire worldwide penicillin market. :) > >That is not what I said. Clearly the DNS and the Internet for that >matter is a U.S. invention. However the subject of control is an >architectural issue. In telecommunication control is a centralized >affair. On the Internet control is in the hands of the end users. Actually it is not. Most of the parts (datagram, "network of network", etc. [Louis Pouzin], DNS ["11" distributed logic of telephone and servers directory service on Minitel, the root file of us in Saint-Cloud (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm)) of the Internet are of French origin. However, the rustic additions that do not work so well in them truely are U.S. additions :-) like ICANN. And this is what we try to "take care" of :-) right now with the Interplus architectural analysis and the Internet presentation layer support. >However the lack control does not change the fact the U.S. through >ARPA and later DARPA build the Internet we have and use today. Correct. Except that I would have phrased "the internet we have to use today". :-) Cheers ! jfc >Joe Baptista wrote: >On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria ><avri at psg.com> wrote: > >and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is >theirs, all theirs? > > >Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to >DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the >DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. > >cheers >joe baptista > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > >-- >Joe Baptista > >www.publicroot.org >PublicRoot Consortium >---------------------------------------------------------------- >The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, >Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > >Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 6 20:27:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7B4EBD.3020407@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Well said Karl,   I was too absolute in stating that nothing was black and white.  Clearly there are degrees here.  I think that you eventually get to that point. The mechanics do not require the politics (kind of). Certainly we do not need glassy office buildings over looking the Marina in Del Rey. A hobble in Kabul would work.  Well not really, would it?  It would not be stable. It would not be secure. It would not attract investment. It would not attract the best and brightest or the best of breed. It would not endear itself to trust and confidence. And it could have the crap taxed out of it. But your final point about what attracts users is totally off the mark.  I will go out on a limb and say you do not like marketing and you do not watch std commercial TV. That is a bit head in the sand, don't you think.  How could most IGF guys understand what drives a kid to use Itunes to download rap, or a Japanese teeneybopper to bootleg bubble gum Indy.  Can you say you get twitter and face -- not how it technically works by why it is so popular? How many texts can you do in four minutes? Believe me -- 90-95 percent of the internet net could give a rats ---- about your stability and security. But they do want accessability at a cheap price to whatever is Hot! Internet Governance has more to do with the flow of what is currently popular than the flow of electrical current. Or did I miss something and the term governance is now relegated to the speed of mechanisms. --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" , wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, igf_members at intgovforum.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 9:44 PM On 08/06/2009 04:08 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I like this Karl.  I only wish the jobs to be done were nice and black > and white. They are not. I disagree.  Years ago I started to enumerate the jobs that we need to have performed.  Take a look at: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/apfi.htm There is another formulation at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/public/ntia-july-7-2006-statement.html (Scan down for "Answering the Specific Questions" and then either search (or better yet, read) your way down to "Form follows function" As I see it there are many jobs (e.g. protocol parameter assignment, TLD record updates, root zone file preparation and dissemination, etc) that could be handed over to several clerical bodies. Then there are some policy jobs (that are might be addressed by the kind of notice-and-comment process used by many administrative bodies when the make rules. Then there are the very highly policy loaded jobs - such as IP address allocation policy, whois, and TLD policy - that might be worth more elaborate structure - with one entity for each problem (*not* one entity that handles multiple problems.) By-the-way, there is a subtle point about my metric i.e. that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any query source or query subject. That subtle point is this: That I don't think we ought to care very much about the performance and quality of the system through which registrars and registries do their front office business of selling names - there are customers enough, and money enough behind those customers, to drive good standards of performance. But from the perspective of internet governance that reflects the concerns of internet users the quality of the process of resolving names, i.e. the back-office operations of registries, is what is critical.         --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Thu Aug 6 20:43:20 2009 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:43:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] unsubscribing In-Reply-To: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <279D5B6B-3E42-4239-BE3B-D23E9C6E6B0E@internet.law.pro> If the list ever returns to being the productive place it was a few months ago, please someone contact me directly so I may resubscribe. Life's too short. -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 6 20:46:30 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:46:30 +1000 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <365627BA-8ECC-42BA-B487-7A1137A77FA3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, There is of course a distinction between operating under Californian law and the JPA. On 7/08/09 7:52 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Karl appears to be saying, among other things, that it would be > difficult to impossible to break the USG link and/or relocate, that > California law is pretty good, etc. And you were equating the USG > link with colonial domination to be resisted. These seem to me to be > two rather different views, so I wasn't clear how you could embrace > both. > > Meanwhile, to those of us actually involved in the beast, it is > becoming increasingly clear that an ICANN accountable only to itself > would be an utter disaster for civil society. When it's posted, have > a look at Brenden's ex parte filing with NTIA which concludes that IGP > believes ICANN's disregard for CS and its own nominal procedural > protections "constitute a fundamental inability of ICANN to satisfy > the conditions enumerated in the JPA." > > Best, > > Bill > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except >> that in >> suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be >> suggesting >> that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and >> useful >> Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is >> a good >> step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular >> incomplete >> and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be >> some sort >> of useful building block in future internet governance, that would >> be a good >> start IMHO. >> >> I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps >> suggest >> to me where you think this is so. >> >> Ian >> >> >> On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" >> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>>> yes, we are >>>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>>> internet >>>> governance might mean. >>> >>> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >>> JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's >>> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN >>> should >>> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >>> continue the JPA." How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >>> his helpful post? >>> >>> Just wondering, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> >>>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>>> coming up >>>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>>> disinterested >>>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to >>>> convince me >>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>>> than a >>>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>>> the >>>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>>> Congress in the >>>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to >>>>>> not >>>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really >>>>>> international. >>>>> >>>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>>> >>>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>>> politician >>>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>>> labeled >>>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>>> >>>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>>> (and >>>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>>> TLDs >>>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>>> be >>>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>>> move. >>>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>>> questions >>>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>>> Jones >>>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on >>>>> these >>>>> matters.) >>>>> >>>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>>> contracts >>>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>>> the >>>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while >>>>> back I >>>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>>> arcane >>>>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>>> would >>>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>>> interpreted >>>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>>> contract >>>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under >>>>> the >>>>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>>> registrants >>>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>>> It >>>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>>> >>>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>>> nothing >>>>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>>> combination in >>>>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>>> entity >>>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>>> doing >>>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>>> nature? >>>>> >>>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I >>>>> tend >>>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>>> is not >>>>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>>> of >>>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>>> >>>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>>> minded >>>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of >>>>> the >>>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if >>>>> we >>>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>>> that >>>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>>> as >>>>> good as most of the better places. >>>>> >>>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>>> the >>>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it >>>>> must. >>>>> >>>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>>> vanish >>>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>>> >>>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>>> supposed >>>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>>> particular >>>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and >>>>> accurately >>>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>>> any >>>>> query source or query subject. >>>>> >>>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>>> important >>>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>>> >>>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>>> done >>>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical >>>>> and >>>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where >>>>> they >>>>> are done. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>>> succeed >>>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want >>>>> to >>>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> --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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>> Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 21:21:53 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:21:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <365627BA-8ECC-42BA-B487-7A1137A77FA3@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: And also, surely, a distinction between the US Department of Commerce and the US Government? Deirdre 2009/8/6 Ian Peter : > Hi Bill, > > There is of course a distinction between operating under Californian law and > the JPA. > > > > > On 7/08/09 7:52 AM, "William Drake" > wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> Karl appears to be saying, among other things, that it would be >> difficult to impossible to break the USG link and/or relocate, that >> California law is pretty good, etc.  And you were equating the USG >> link with colonial domination to be resisted.  These seem to me to be >> two rather different views, so I wasn't clear how you could embrace >> both. >> >> Meanwhile, to those of us actually involved in the beast, it is >> becoming increasingly clear that an ICANN accountable only to itself >> would be an utter disaster for civil society.  When it's posted, have >> a look at Brenden's ex parte filing with NTIA which concludes that IGP >> believes ICANN's disregard for CS and its own nominal procedural >> protections "constitute a fundamental inability of ICANN to satisfy >> the conditions enumerated in the JPA." >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> Not sure where those two views are at odds with each other, except >>> that in >>> suggesting ICANN should resist the JPA I am perhaps seen to be >>> suggesting >>> that an ICANN post JPA would per se represent complete, logical and >>> useful >>> Internet governance. I don't think that at all. I just think that is >>> a good >>> step for ICANN towards some sort of legitimacy in its particular >>> incomplete >>> and somewhat illogical role in internet governance. If it is to be >>> some sort >>> of useful building block in future internet governance, that would >>> be a good >>> start IMHO. >>> >>> I don't see where what I am saying is at odds with Karl, but perhaps >>> suggest >>> to me where you think this is so. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> On 6/08/09 10:22 PM, "William Drake" >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and >>>>> yes, we are >>>>> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >>>>> internet >>>>> governance might mean. >>>> >>>> This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the >>>> JPA statement a couple months ago.  At that time you likened ICANN's >>>> linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN >>>> should >>>> exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to >>>> continue the JPA."  How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in >>>> his helpful post? >>>> >>>> Just wondering, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >>>>> coming up >>>>> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >>>>> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >>>>> disinterested >>>>> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to >>>>> convince me >>>>> otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >>>>> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >>>>> than a >>>>> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>>>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any >>>>>>> Congress in the >>>>>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really >>>>>>> international. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no >>>>>> politician >>>>>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being >>>>>> labeled >>>>>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>>>>> >>>>>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or >>>>>> (and >>>>>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>>>>> TLDs >>>>>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would >>>>>> be >>>>>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those >>>>>> things. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>>>>> move. >>>>>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>>>>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>>>>> questions >>>>>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is >>>>>> Jones >>>>>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>>>>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on >>>>>> these >>>>>> matters.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>>>>> contracts >>>>>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.)  Contracts (and >>>>>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to >>>>>> the >>>>>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted.  A while >>>>>> back I >>>>>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>>>>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and >>>>>> arcane >>>>>> national laws.  That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place >>>>>> would >>>>>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be >>>>>> interpreted >>>>>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a >>>>>> contract >>>>>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under >>>>>> the >>>>>> laws of country B.  That would mean not only uncertainty for >>>>>> registrants >>>>>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. >>>>>> It >>>>>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually >>>>>> nothing >>>>>> to do with internet stability.  ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>>>>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>>>>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a >>>>>> combination in >>>>>> restraint of trade."  The point here is that do we really want to >>>>>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>>>>> entity >>>>>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>>>>> doing >>>>>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>>>>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>>>>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>>>>> nature? >>>>>> >>>>>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California.  (In the US, >>>>>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law.  ICANN >>>>>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.)  Since California is my home I >>>>>> tend >>>>>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that >>>>>> is not >>>>>> all that bad.  I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea >>>>>> of >>>>>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well >>>>>> minded >>>>>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>>>>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of >>>>>> the >>>>>> most clearly articulated of those laws.)  I would suspect that if >>>>>> we >>>>>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance >>>>>> that >>>>>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, >>>>>> as >>>>>> good as most of the better places. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from >>>>>> the >>>>>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it >>>>>> must. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>>>>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>>>>> vanish >>>>>> into a poof of money-scented smoke.  The main loss would be a very >>>>>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>>>>> supposed >>>>>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>>>>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in >>>>>> particular >>>>>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and >>>>>> accurately >>>>>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against >>>>>> any >>>>>> query source or query subject. >>>>>> >>>>>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>>>>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more >>>>>> important >>>>>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want >>>>>> done >>>>>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical >>>>>> and >>>>>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where >>>>>> they >>>>>> are done. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to >>>>>> succeed >>>>>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want >>>>>> to >>>>>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>>>>> >>>>>> --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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> Senior Associate >>>> Centre for International Governance >>>> Graduate Institute of International and >>>>   Development Studies >>>> Geneva, Switzerland >>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Thu Aug 6 22:45:20 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:45:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <20090807000456.BFB9C9804F@mail6.zoneedit.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> <20090807000456.BFB9C9804F@mail6.zoneedit.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908061945v5f74ba24r7e277f2fdabb270b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:04 PM, jefsey wrote: > Dear Joe, > some more nationalistic bragging. > No - not really. Although Bell is the undisputed inventor of the telephone as far as marketing is concerned .. the truth is somewhat complex. I don't believe Bell invented the phone first but he did have a great marketing department behind him. Actually it is not. Most of the parts (datagram, "network of network", etc. [Louis Pouzin], DNS ["11" distributed logic of telephone and servers directory service on Minitel, the root file of us in Saint-Cloud (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm)) of the Internet are of French origin. Yes I agree. Many people built the Internet .. but bottom line the goose that laid the golden egg was Спутник. October 4th 1957 was a brave new day for America. And every ninetysix minutes that Russian satellite passed over the USA and went beep beep beep. That little beep shook the U.S. government to it's core. Shortly after that military funding was significantly increased - the military industrial complex was born and they needed reliable computer systems. The internet was a perfect solution to military needs. Internet protocol is designed to route around error. If one mainframe goes down due to a military strike against the facility you just route the traffic to another containing a backup - one example of the many benefits they saw back then. So I agree with you many were involved - including Louis who built the basic framework for TCP/IP - Cerf just took the credit. But if it was not for U.S. government driven need the Internet as we know it today would not exist. So they have every right to take credit for it. But I don't think they will. Internet protocol is revolutionary in that it places control with the end user. Thats dangerous. Once the NSF figured out the Internet was a significant liability - and dangerous - it became an administrative nightmare hurtling around Washington like a grenade with the pin taken out. Let's not forget the whole thing with ICANN and the numbers administrators is one of the biggest scam against the U.S. public in the history of America. These duties were once - and still are - under U.S. government contract. And the scam is the fact that once the U.S. government loses control of names and especially numbers those resources which clearly belong to the American people are put in the hands of a small group of people for zero dollars. Thats the biggest fraud in U.S. history against the U.S. government taxpayer. I don't think the U.S. government has figured that out yet that they are effectively giving away the property of people of the United States to a group of jackasses trying to play monopoly with names and numbers. When the American public wakes up and realizes what was given away - they are going to be pissed. cheers joe baptista Joe Baptista wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. cheers joe baptista ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wnew at ip-watch.ch Fri Aug 7 01:04:58 2009 From: wnew at ip-watch.ch (William New) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 07:04:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] unsubscribing In-Reply-To: <279D5B6B-3E42-4239-BE3B-D23E9C6E6B0E@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <200908070505.n77550aU012507@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> I agree. It seems to me there are a couple of people intent on distracting from and undermining any meaningful conversation here. William New, Director/ Editor-in-Chief, Intellectual Property Watch, Geneva, Switzerland -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] unsubscribing If the list ever returns to being the productive place it was a few months ago, please someone contact me directly so I may resubscribe. Life's too short. -- Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 04:52:02 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:52:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70908070152l3e1cc61dydbe57a11d6e6b4fb@mail.gmail.com> Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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.roxana at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 08:56:26 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:56:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <701af9f70908070152l3e1cc61dydbe57a11d6e6b4fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70908060851x160405ep1c20ac14710ba0c2@mail.gmail.com> <579352.99149.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <701af9f70908070152l3e1cc61dydbe57a11d6e6b4fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0908070556l513e10ccmf2cf497752323ac@mail.gmail.com> Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > Hi Eric, > > True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. > If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will > we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue > to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin > pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your > comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a > development agenda with respect to IG. > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric > Dierker wrote: > > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my > work > > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. > What > > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their > perspective > > on the net. > > > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on > the > > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of > the > > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > > Development Agenda from Civil Society > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > > the developed world perspective. > > > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Aug 7 08:56:30 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:56:30 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? Wolfgang: IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and beyond: 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional committee In this case there three possible consequences: a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial discussion the rest of the world will accept it. b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could paralyze ICANN for the years ahead c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US taxpayers money). 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also an answer to the "How"-question. 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it after five years. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 7 09:04:50 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:04:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <874c02a20908070604k3eec6066kc02470ff87169868@mail.gmail.com> 2009/8/7 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > People will do what they have been doing since the inception of ICANN. They will create their own DNS systems outside the U.S. government root, like China did, and Russia, and Turkey and ..... etc. etc. And thats just some of the countries. While I agree the U.S. has a strong claim to DNS they don't control it. No one does. That is the end nature of Internet protocol. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Aug 7 09:41:23 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:41:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908061945v5f74ba24r7e277f2fdabb270b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <874c02a20908060440r1b40fc50q4c7e43a18b963fbd@mail.gmail.com> <4A7ACD1D.9040804@rits.org.br> <874c02a20908060555u23005a33g6b1140128b3e4021@mail.gmail.com> <20090807000456.BFB9C9804F@mail6.zoneedit.com> <874c02a20908061945v5f74ba24r7e277f2fdabb270b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7C2F03.1030606@rits.org.br> For sure Cerf & Co. have had a great marketing dept behind them as well... :) which for one reduced to oblivion the seminal work generated by Pouzin and all the packet switching folks. And I liked Jefsey's phrase "the Internet we have to use today". The pyramidal DNS we are obliged to use today, and so on... --c.a. Joe Baptista wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:04 PM, jefsey wrote: > >> Dear Joe, >> some more nationalistic bragging. >> > > No - not really. Although Bell is the undisputed inventor of the telephone > as far as marketing is concerned .. the truth is somewhat complex. I don't > believe Bell invented the phone first but he did have a great marketing > department behind him. > > > > Actually it is not. Most of the parts (datagram, "network of network", etc. > [Louis Pouzin], DNS ["11" distributed logic of telephone and servers > directory service on Minitel, the root file of us in Saint-Cloud > (http://intlnet.org/intlhist.htm)) > of the Internet are of French origin. > > Yes I agree. Many people built the Internet .. but bottom line the goose > that laid the golden egg was Спутник. October 4th 1957 was a brave new day > for America. And every ninetysix minutes that Russian satellite passed over > the USA and went beep beep beep. > > That little beep shook the U.S. government to it's core. Shortly after that > military funding was significantly increased - the military industrial > complex was born and they needed reliable computer systems. The internet was > a perfect solution to military needs. Internet protocol is designed to route > around error. If one mainframe goes down due to a military strike against > the facility you just route the traffic to another containing a backup - one > example of the many benefits they saw back then. > > So I agree with you many were involved - including Louis who built the basic > framework for TCP/IP - Cerf just took the credit. But if it was not for U.S. > government driven need the Internet as we know it today would not exist. > > So they have every right to take credit for it. But I don't think they will. > Internet protocol is revolutionary in that it places control with the end > user. Thats dangerous. Once the NSF figured out the Internet was a > significant liability - and dangerous - it became an administrative > nightmare hurtling around Washington like a grenade with the pin taken out. > > Let's not forget the whole thing with ICANN and the numbers administrators > is one of the biggest scam against the U.S. public in the history of > America. These duties were once - and still are - under U.S. government > contract. > > And the scam is the fact that once the U.S. government loses control of > names and especially numbers those resources which clearly belong to the > American people are put in the hands of a small group of people for zero > dollars. > > Thats the biggest fraud in U.S. history against the U.S. government > taxpayer. > > I don't think the U.S. government has figured that out yet that they are > effectively giving away the property of people of the United States to a > group of jackasses trying to play monopoly with names and numbers. > > When the American public wakes up and realizes what was given away - they > are going to be pissed. > > cheers > joe baptista > > > Joe Baptista wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > and what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is > theirs, all theirs? > > > Thats is a difficult statement. But it can be proven that when it comes to > DNS the U.S. has played the lead role and it could easily be argued that the > DNS is in fact a U.S. invention. > > cheers > joe baptista > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 10:08:58 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:38:58 -0430 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls Message-ID: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri Aug 7 11:26:57 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:26:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger, I do not really like the trolls that have been circulating for the past weeks.. But I stick to this list because I know there are relevant discussions that I would want to listen to. But personal attacks are a sign of a weak argument. I do not expect that such trolls would just simply go away because they do not pay much attention. In my experience, they won't go away easily as trolls thrive on attention. Best to ignore them. So I have filtered my emails from this list, too, because of the overwhelming amount of unrelated discussions and attacks. Regards, Charity On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. > However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for > each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest > that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages > before they reach your inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages > by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators > cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the > right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a > list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in > discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the > messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to > a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > Best, > Ginger * > * > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 7 12:14:55 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:14:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Wolfgang, Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional committees can do to get what they want. I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. Lee ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? Wolfgang: IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and beyond: 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional committee In this case there three possible consequences: a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial discussion the rest of the world will accept it. b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could paralyze ICANN for the years ahead c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US taxpayers money). 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also an answer to the "How"-question. 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it after five years. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 7 14:06:15 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & Unsubscribing Message-ID: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Roxana and Fouad,   My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction.   You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer.   Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim.     * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly.  Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 7 14:37:37 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:37:37 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> On 08/07/2009 05:56 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee > on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have > to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. > what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the > world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? The answer to that question is one that depends on whether one unquestioningly accepts certain assumptions as truths or whether one takes a deeper look. The most basic of those assumptions is that there must be exactly one DNS for the internet. Technically that is not true. There can be (and in fact there are) many. Most are badly operated, an unfortunate fact that has caused the disrepute of the operators to unfairly splash onto the idea. What we need to recognize is that the real issue is not the multiplicity of DNS systems or DNS roots or DNS root zone but rather the consistency among them. Users and providers (and people who have to repair the net) do not like and will shun inconsistency. I have written about this, in particular how re-evaluation of our assumptions in this regard, can give us a path out of our centralized regulatory mess and also solve the TLD wars that have consumed a good part of ICANN this last decade: http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000331.html (You could read the whole thing, but for the purposes of this email, you could scan down to the section "The Alternative History") The point of that note is to argue that if we adopt a slightly relaxed definition of "consistent" that the allowance of competing root zones that are disseminated by competing systems of roots gives us a path forward - it allows for the de-centralized growth of DNS and also give those communities that wish to reduce their view of the internet landscape (as some religious groups want to do) a means to do so without constraining those who do not want to go along. --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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri Aug 7 14:43:04 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 02:43:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Roxana and Fouad, > > My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class > geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than > differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to > elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. > It was during the time when the last international governance elections > were held in ICANN. > We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not > with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common > interaction. > > You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of > elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note > they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. > > Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. > Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro > democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to > Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. > Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and > acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are > very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and > McTim. > > > * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a > grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. > Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by > people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for > us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. > > --- On *Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein * wrote: > > > From: Roxana Goldstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" > Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM > > Hi Eric, Fouad and all, > > I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from > the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the > underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are > "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the > contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in > english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate > to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. > The scenario is different in underdev countries. > > I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table > a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction > and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites > instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, > perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low > participation of underdev people. > > Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I > was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, > even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed > contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to > make something different than what has been done before. > > Best regards, > Roxana > > > 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > > > >> Hi Eric, >> >> True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. >> If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will >> we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue >> to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin >> pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your >> comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a >> development agenda with respect to IG. >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric >> Dierker> >> wrote: >> > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my >> work >> > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. >> What >> > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their >> perspective >> > on the net. >> > >> > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on >> the >> > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of >> the >> > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. >> > >> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > >> wrote: >> > >> > From: Fouad Bajwa >> > >> > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >> > Development Agenda from Civil Society >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM >> > >> > Dear Friends, >> > >> > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF >> > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and >> > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet >> > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the >> > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world >> > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from >> > the developed world perspective. >> > >> > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development >> > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this >> > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in >> > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and >> > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards >> > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from >> > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the >> > grass roots and members of the IGC. >> > >> > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing >> > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. >> > >> > -- >> > Regards. >> > -------------------------- >> > Fouad Bajwa >> > @skBajwa >> > Answering all your technology questions >> > http://www.askbajwa.com >> > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 7 15:35:08 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <57622.33768.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Wow Charity -- right on point!   1st I think you are mixing a bit the concepts of geography with anthropologic socio-political boundaries.  Certainly "where are you comin from" does not refer to a map coordinance. I think we really agree on this  --  Places like Panjabi Tandoor and Hannibals Alps and the great Gobi show much shared significance. (personally I like the fantasy metaphors the best like in Narnia, Lord of the Rings and Dante's Inferno)   But boyo boyo you hit the nail on the head with how different people come from different places.  I also like to look at sameplace cast systems, generation gaps and sex. But once again we should be mindful in setting up governance that we do not segregate, discriminate or make exceptions for differences but rather find commonalities that we can promote.   (I say all this with a deep fear and loathing for commercial globalization of cultures) We must remain as vigilante to preserve heritage and regional security as we are diligante to promote human equality. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Charity Gamboa wrote: From: Charity Gamboa Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Roxana Goldstein" , "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 6:43 PM Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net.  Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Roxana and Fouad,   My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction.   You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer.   Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim.     * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly.  Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 15:54:28 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 00:54:28 +0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70908071254r6076c57et6003002e343a8c16@mail.gmail.com> Dear Charity, This is the opportunity that you have elaborated in a very appropriate manner. Your experience sharing is the objective of this discussion and that is what I am trying to encourage here. The development agenda of the Internet, creating the global dialogue, looking at global policy making, where will it happen, who will it affect directly or indirectly, the pressure it creates from the OECD region to the developing region, the impact positive or negative that such efforts will have is what we in the developing world or the developing south are very concerned about and we have to approach this in a very possible developing-developing, south-south, developed-developing, developing-developed manner. I see the upcoming IGF as the the first step to create that opportunity and to share and intervene at very developing and developed perspective but the developing aspect should be looked at as the most crucial area. There are laws in my region related to the Internet that have deprived our basic right to freedom of expression, information sharing, social and economic growth using the Internet. For three years our struggle for reform in a certain law has been transformed into a horrible situation that prevents us to even voice our basic human right of human opinion, where do we stand, lost? Maybe, but is IGF a hope, yes it is.............so why should be fall into just an essence of intellectual discussions and research oriented information analysis whereas we are witnessing the pressures and struggling to get people out of jail just because they weren't educated by the authorities and legislation was established without seeking public opinion, the very public that brought the decision makers to their positions to help develop policies that would help their social and economic development, not eliminate the potential the Internet really offers. Who did they follow, the policies of the developed world without understanding why the developed region made those policies in the first place. We want to be a part of the solution for our people in the developing world, for our friends and civil society members in other developing regions. We want to find a way for improvement, not let influences in small gatherings determine our future without our participation and intervention.......................IG4D is very close to us for our social and economic growth, our political situations, our future. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Fouad, Eric and Roxana, > > Just wanted to share my thoughts here. > > Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of > resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's > perspective on the Net.  Implying/claiming that geographic location has no > bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the > bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. > > Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a > developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines > and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US > and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My > perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 > women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy > to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by > the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on > the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a > developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse > experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or > stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn > and share experiences. > > Regards, > Charity > > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker > wrote: >> >> Roxana and Fouad, >> >> My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class >> geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than >> differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to >> elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. >> It was during the time when the last international governance elections >> were held in ICANN. >> We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not >> with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common >> interaction. >> >> You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of >> elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note >> they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. >> >> Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. >> Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro >> democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to >> Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. >> Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and >> acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are >> very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and >> McTim. >> >> >> * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a >> grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. >> Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by >> people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for >> us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. >> >> --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: >> >> From: Roxana Goldstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" >> Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM >> >> Hi Eric, Fouad and all, >> >> I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from >> the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the >> underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are >> "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the >> contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in >> english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate >> to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. >> The scenario is different in underdev countries. >> >> I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table >> a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction >> and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites >> instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, >> perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low >> participation of underdev people. >> >> Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I >> was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, >> even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed >> contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to >> make something different than what has been done before. >> >> Best regards, >> Roxana >> >> >> 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. >>> If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will >>> we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue >>> to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin >>> pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your >>> comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a >>> development agenda with respect to IG. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric >>> Dierker wrote: >>> > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my >>> > work >>> > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation. >>> > What >>> > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their >>> > perspective >>> > on the net. >>> > >>> > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona >>> > on the >>> > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of >>> > the >>> > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. >>> > >>> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> > >>> > From: Fouad Bajwa >>> > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >>> > Development Agenda from Civil Society >>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM >>> > >>> > Dear Friends, >>> > >>> > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF >>> > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and >>> > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet >>> > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the >>> > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world >>> > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from >>> > the developed world perspective. >>> > >>> > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development >>> > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this >>> > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in >>> > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and >>> > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards >>> > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from >>> > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the >>> > grass roots and members of the IGC. >>> > >>> > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing >>> > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Regards. >>> > -------------------------- >>> > Fouad Bajwa >>> > @skBajwa >>> > Answering all your technology questions >>> > http://www.askbajwa.com >>> > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> @skBajwa >>> Answering all your technology questions >>> http://www.askbajwa.com >>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 7 17:40:10 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 14:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: 4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com Message-ID: Ginger, I Motion that the "List" here move to a new local, designated specifically to the IGC Re: {Current List) governance at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions on Internet Governance To: igc at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions of the IGC [Internet Governance Caucus] Or just move the list to the IGC site: http://www.igcaucus.org/ (mail list i.e: igc at igcaucus.org) --- I personally enjoy the cross-fire of interests on the current list, as it is, and hope it remains an open list. It spurs serendipity and spontaneity of the mind. However I see your point, maybe now is a good time to augment the list's purpose, and move too a more concise mail list address for IGC conversation. Does anyone second the motion? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 7 17:47:19 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Dear Charity: I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education initiatives in the Caribbean. The Internet is an absolutely critical resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be shared. For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our perspectives. Kind regards, Carlton On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Fouad, Eric and Roxana, > > Just wanted to share my thoughts here. > > Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of > resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's > perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no > bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the > bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. > > Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a > developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines > and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US > and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My > perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 > women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy > to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by > the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on > the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a > developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse > experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or > stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn > and share experiences. > > Regards, > Charity > > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > >> Roxana and Fouad, >> >> My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class >> geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than >> differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to >> elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. >> It was during the time when the last international governance elections >> were held in ICANN. >> We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not >> with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common >> interaction. >> >> You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of >> elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note >> they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. >> >> Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. >> Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro >> democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to >> Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. >> Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and >> acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are >> very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and >> McTim. >> >> >> * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a >> grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. >> Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by >> people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for >> us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. >> >> --- On *Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein *wrote: >> >> >> From: Roxana Goldstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" >> Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM >> >> Hi Eric, Fouad and all, >> >> I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from >> the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the >> underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are >> "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the >> contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in >> english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate >> to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. >> The scenario is different in underdev countries. >> >> I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table >> a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction >> and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites >> instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, >> perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low >> participation of underdev people. >> >> Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I >> was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, >> even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed >> contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to >> make something different than what has been done before. >> >> Best regards, >> Roxana >> >> >> 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa >> > >> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. >>> If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will >>> we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue >>> to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin >>> pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your >>> comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a >>> development agenda with respect to IG. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric >>> Dierker> >>> wrote: >>> > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my >>> work >>> > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. >>> What >>> > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their >>> perspective >>> > on the net. >>> > >>> > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona >>> on the >>> > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of >>> the >>> > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. >>> > >>> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > From: Fouad Bajwa >>> > >>> > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance >>> > Development Agenda from Civil Society >>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM >>> > >>> > Dear Friends, >>> > >>> > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF >>> > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and >>> > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet >>> > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the >>> > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world >>> > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from >>> > the developed world perspective. >>> > >>> > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development >>> > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this >>> > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in >>> > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and >>> > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards >>> > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from >>> > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the >>> > grass roots and members of the IGC. >>> > >>> > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing >>> > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Regards. >>> > -------------------------- >>> > Fouad Bajwa >>> > @skBajwa >>> > Answering all your technology questions >>> > http://www.askbajwa.com >>> > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> @skBajwa >>> Answering all your technology questions >>> http://www.askbajwa.com >>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 7 18:00:58 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 18:00:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908071500p4e0d1bb0uf22b0217767f0125@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. > However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for > each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest > that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages > before they reach your inbox. > That won't work. It will just create confusion. Because replies to rejected email will still get through and that always seems to cause more confusion then the problems it is due to solve. cheers joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 7 21:03:27 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:03:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908071803p5592980dna8bcc69cea1c070@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of > elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note > they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. > I say good riddance to most of them. It's the elitist intellectuals who got us into this internet governance nonsense in the first place. There is a place for internet governance in representing the will of the users to the marketplace and the the politic twits who govern worldwide. But there are to many elitist intellectuals trying to build bureaucracy .. like ICANN .. to run a false name space. Many people here just don't understand the Internet. They have some sort of fuzzy ideas about it all and think the Internet's the best thing next to the invention of sliced bread. Or something to that end. In reality the Internet is very dangerous - http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - it can kill - http://bit.ly/hcndEanonymously. I'm talking real bullets. Now I warned you back in 1995 the Internet is a dangerous place. All my predictions have come true. Yet every day I see members of the human race become more interdependent on devices attached to a transport medium that is ripe for mass security violations. Internet warfare and surveillance is the future norm not the exception. It's a scary place that needs governance. One message governance has to get to the governments is that they must make themselves less dependent on the Internet. The amount of potential economic damage that can be caused by the Internet at any time by anyone is in my opinion catastrophic. The economic damage done to date is minor in comparison to the damage one rouge root operator can wreak. You can't govern the Internet until you understand that all control is in the hands of the end users - ultimately - the internet is an anarchy. You must build a governance model that serves the anarchy. To many of these elitist intellectuals I find spend more time in argument serving themselves and completely miss the point. Now I think this little factum makes the elitist intellectuals nervous because most become irrelevant in an anarchy. Anarchies are usually build on common sense. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 7 23:56:05 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <124715.5869.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ginger and Yehuda,   I have not heard any of your ideas of governance.  Yes it is true I have heard your ideas on building a Cracy that you are trying to fund.  Yes it is true that everyone does not have the same idea of governance, but who the hell are you thinking you can govern when you hear what you do not like and then run away? --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 9:40 PM Ginger, I Motion that the "List" here move to a new local, designated specifically to the IGC Re: {Current List) governance at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions on Internet Governance To: igc at lists.cpsr.org For Discussions of the IGC [Internet Governance Caucus] Or just move the list to the IGC site: http://www.igcaucus.org/ (mail list i.e: igc at igcaucus.org) --- I personally enjoy the cross-fire of interests on the current list, as it is, and hope it remains an open list. It spurs serendipity and spontaneity of the mind. However I see your point, maybe now is a good time to augment the list's purpose, and move too a more concise mail list address for IGC conversation. Does anyone second the motion? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 00:28:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <448401.53213.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I truly hope that you obviously very perceptive and good folks do not be content with listening.  I look forward to your contributions. I do hear hopes and needs in your writings and I sense that necessary sense of urgency that drives people to do great things.  --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Carlton Samuels wrote: From: Carlton Samuels Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Charity Gamboa" Cc: "Eric Dierker" , "Roxana Goldstein" , "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 9:47 PM Dear Charity: I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education initiatives in the Caribbean.  The Internet is an absolutely critical resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be shared.  For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our perspectives. Kind regards, Carlton On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net.  Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Roxana and Fouad,   My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction.   You are too right about snobbery Roxanna.  Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer.   Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement.  Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim.     * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post.  It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly.  Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Not a good starting point here.  I am from a developed nation.  All my work > has been for developing nations.  My wife is from a developing nation.  What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico.  Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 8 00:53:19 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IG Mail List powered by .EWE Message-ID: Karl, Do you have a test-page up on the .EWE tld? I would like to re-direct a .com domain to the .ewe test page target. [i.e.: http://www.abcDomain.com/ >>>redirect>>> http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ (IP address of: test.ewe page) Second question, Can you have a mail list program such as this List set up at a .EWE address for us? [mail list: ig at maillist.ewe or talk at list.ewe or kaffeeklatsch at list.ewe etc...] If Yes, I'll redirect a choice IG domain name to the .ewe maillist server address, then the Folks who want to have a Coffee Klatch/Kaffeeklatsch conversation on Internet Governace can have a space, where it won't impinge on Others trying to do work. - I have read and understand the Agreement: http://www.cavebear.com/eweregistry/agreement.html Payment in Wine of your flavor (Cab, Zin, Barbera, etc...) will be delivered to your door step, next time I'm down to visit Haut's Surf Shop and Bonnie Doons. Thnx ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 8 04:54:37 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:54:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because she is a co-coordinator of the list. I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. --MM ________________________________ On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Dear IGC members: We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your inbox. A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the messages you receive. We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think appropriate. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 13:07:14 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls Message-ID: <207723.18583.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Jeff,   Please note and retain copy of Miltons post of filtering all that he does not like to hear.  Next he testifies - fortifying the status quo and maintaining his niche -- it would be good for the listeners to know his understanding is limited to what he wants to hear.   I imagine in his classes you get an F if you do not agree and simply recite back to him his great ideas.  Very classic educational western model.  Very much why private educational institutions that team with business and civic organizations are doing so well.    Miltons style of what governance should be would be cool combined with Lockes Utopia and the ever sought never found benevolent dictator.  It fits right in with bookburning, religious zealots (perhaps Iran - perhaps not), strict Czars and totalitarian communism.   I wonder if when he travels he concocts filters like five star hotels, and chauffeurs to make sure the cries of the downcast, forgotten and sick cannot reach his ears.  Heaven forbid he be detoured from his lofty purpose by concepts like empathy and self organization and user rights.  My goodness I wonder what he does when he gets ill. Certainly not a public place type hospital where he would share space and physician with some horrible low class person like you.   I feel bad for chastizing posts last week who threw the rich and elitists into bad light.  My apologies to Avri.  Perhaps I should rethink that the privileged should be held to a higher standard, which Miltons falls far below.   And please all here remember when next attending a "governance" meeting -- to leave Ghandi at home, to forget that illiterate Lincoln and to never, never, never hold your wine glass with a full hand and try to keep the pinky straight.   But wait -- I should be considered a Troll for criticizing such a man -- censored for calling elitism eltism although he may hurl the greatest insults in the world at us lower classed imbeciles.   Eric Dierker, Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Bachelor of Philosphy,  of Security --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" , "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Yehuda Katz" , "Charity Gamboa" , "Ian Peter" , "Fouad Bajwa" , "Parminder" , "William Drake" , "Lee W McKnight" , "Roland Perry" , "Roxana Goldstein" , "Wolfgang" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:53 AM Eric and all,   I fully concur with your sentiments.  Seems to me that the governed should be able to freely, openly and transparently participate in IT governance issues.  I believe this is also in line with UN resolution as well. Eric Dierker wrote: > > Ginger and Yehuda, I have not heard any of your ideas of governance.   Yes it is true I have heard your ideas on building a Cracy that you   are trying to fund.  Yes it is true that everyone does not have the   same idea of governance, but who the hell are you thinking you can   govern when you hear what you do not like and then run away?   --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Yehuda Katz wrote:        From: Yehuda Katz        Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the        trolls        To: governance at lists.cpsr.org        Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 9:40 PM        Ginger,        I Motion that the "List" here move to a new local,        designated specifically to        the IGC        Re:        {Current List)        governance at lists.cpsr.org        For Discussions on Internet Governance        To:        igc at lists.cpsr.org        For Discussions of the IGC [Internet Governance Caucus]        Or just move the list to the IGC site:        http://www.igcaucus.org/        (mail list i.e: igc at igcaucus.org)        ---        I personally enjoy the cross-fire of interests on the        current list, as it is,        and hope it remains an open list. It spurs serendipity and        spontaneity of the        mind.        However I see your point, maybe now is a good time to        augment the list's        purpose, and move too a more concise mail list address for        IGC conversation.        Does anyone second the motion?        ____________________________________________________________        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:             governance at lists.cpsr.org        To be removed from the list, 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 > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 8 13:34:06 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:34:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A7DB70E.5070703@rits.org.br> Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and other mystery folks. It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out loud! ;) --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. However, > until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for each case, > we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest that you set your > Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your > inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages by > trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators cannot > do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the right to > legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a list. > Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in discussions with > unproductive members and use filters to control the messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to a > moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > Best, > Ginger * > * > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 8 19:17:58 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:17:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: <37765.81744.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <37765.81744.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A7E07A6.3000502@rits.org.br> The central problem here resides in the scope of the list. If we want an open discussion like an open air lunch forum in which anyone can come (including people who are after things other than the general objectives of the forum), fine, let us continue with it -- this is what this list is today. But here we try to build consensus on key themes based on views we bring from non-profit organizations concerned or involved with the themes of Internet governance, sometimes we vote, we try to build a unified position to be submitted to fora such as ICANN and the IGF. So it is up to us to decide which way to go. I am sure more people will be asking to leave, or simply unsubscribe, if the list continues as is. What kind of online caucus we want? This is what we need to answer. I think all of us want a plural caucus in which opinions are diverse and the resulting debate might lead us to build consensus, but first and foremost, I for one want a caucus in which I know whom I am debating with. Finally, I am puzzled (and curious) as to what class or faith Mr Dierker (whom I do not know about either) is stamping me with. Nor his qualifications to teach Dr Müller (I for one did not request lessons). frt rgds --c.a. Eric Dierker wrote: > (this is for the education of Milton and Carlos and in honor of > Martin, Gandhi, Bobby and Malcolm) Yes Carlos you quoted the same > words verbatim!!! > > October 4th 1953. Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA. Locale: Famed > Phoenix Country Club. Activity: Emergency meeting of the BoD re: > Membership. > > It was learned today that there was a Jewish family that was > inadvertently sold property within the Country Club. Emergency > meeting to discuss enforcement of membership criteria, and exclusion > of undesirables. After much debate using words such as Kikes and > Niggers the following was concluded; > > "this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription (application) process in which people no one knows or > about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the > list. (club) We would at least clean up....." > > The only things worse than racial bigotry is bigotry based on faith > and on class. This horrible example of Carlos' way was only for a > Country Club. Can one imagine going back 50 years in bias and > prejudice on a list about governance. Clearly we must say -- Forgive > them lord, for they know not what they do. > > Governance has never and will never be about the Carlos' and Miltons' > deciding what is best for the people. They may exclude me and my > brothers from their club, but they will never ever govern my people. > > --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] > Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Ian > Peter" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:34 > PM > > > Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom > one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We > would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and > other mystery folks. > > It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. > > We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out > loud! ;) > > --c.a. > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the >> list. However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the >> ICG charter for each case, we cannot take action against them. In >> the meantime we suggest that you set your Spam or other email >> filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of >> messages by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". >> All of us must take individual action to avoid destruction of the >> list. The co-coordinators cannot do it with administrative action >> alone, because we must protect the right to legitimate discussion >> and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and >> overwhelm a list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not >> participate in discussions with unproductive members and use >> filters to control the messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a >> change to a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and >> opine if you think appropriate. >> >> Best, Ginger * * >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sat Aug 8 21:03:44 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: 4A7E07A6.3000502@rits.org.br Message-ID: Carlos, I have offered-up two suggestions/possibilitites: 1. Augmenting the list http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00069.html 2. Create a nEwe Space http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00075.html - I.M.O.: Lists' have lives, and this one has come to a fork-in-the-road. It's time to pursue another tact with regards to IG and all that encompases the Internet. That said, I feel creating a new mail list for the company of Thoses who see that a Community for: .Web, .Ewe, ,Etc... all which resides outside the realm of Icann's DNS jurisdiction, can be very useful. I live in a place where holistic perspectives are the norm [Sonoma County, Sebastopol, California, USA], and it's this norm that has fostered things like: O'Reilly Publications, RSS Protocal, Agilent Technologies, and the Telecommunications Valley. You may call that "alternative thinking" ... many do, but we call that normal. Conversely we realize the rest of the world 'thinks' spmewhat differently than we do, and we welcome that. This post can't convey how Berkeley-esk an atmosphere it is here in California, Its just a positive diverse enviroment, too which that diversity is ... the Mother of Invention. I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the Father of Email (SMTP protocol), and other allied Brethren who read in the wings of this mail-list group. I think We are all smart enough to know when to branch-out, erect our postition, and reach for something higher. Enough Crawling... Evolve - Holism - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism University of California, Berkeley http://www.berkeley.edu/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 8 22:37:56 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:37:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7E3684.9050906@rits.org.br> Only in California, as the say goes ... :) --c.a. Yehuda Katz wrote: > Carlos, > > I have offered-up two suggestions/possibilitites: > > 1. Augmenting the list > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00069.html > > 2. Create a nEwe Space > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00075.html > > - > > I.M.O.: Lists' have lives, and this one has come to a fork-in-the-road. > > It's time to pursue another tact with regards to IG and all that encompases the > Internet. That said, I feel creating a new mail list for the company of Thoses > who see that a Community for: .Web, .Ewe, ,Etc... all which resides outside the > realm of Icann's DNS jurisdiction, can be very useful. > > I live in a place where holistic perspectives are the norm [Sonoma County, > Sebastopol, California, USA], and it's this norm that has fostered things like: > O'Reilly Publications, RSS Protocal, Agilent Technologies, and the > Telecommunications Valley. You may call that "alternative thinking" ... many > do, but we call that normal. Conversely we realize the rest of the world > 'thinks' spmewhat differently than we do, and we welcome that. > > This post can't convey how Berkeley-esk an atmosphere it is here in California, > Its just a positive diverse enviroment, too which that diversity is ... the > Mother of Invention. > > I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton > Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the > Father of Email (SMTP protocol), and other allied Brethren who read in the > wings of this mail-list group. > > I think We are all smart enough to know when to branch-out, erect our > postition, and reach for something higher. > > Enough Crawling... Evolve > > - > Holism - Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism > > University of California, Berkeley > http://www.berkeley.edu/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 22:54:32 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 19:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) Message-ID: <115649.70701.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Excellent Carlos, (your pedigree preceeds you of course) --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso ca at rits.org.br> wrote: The central problem here resides in the scope of the list. If we want an open discussion like an open air lunch forum in which anyone can come (including people who are after things other than the general objectives of the forum), fine, let us continue with it -- this is what this list is today. Please set forth the general objectives of the list and where they are located. the stuff I read sounds like a marketing and fundraising advertising press release  http://cpsr.org/issues/gis/tunisrpt/  But here we try to build consensus on key themes based on views we bring from non-profit organizations concerned or involved with the themes of Internet governance,(I have not seen a vote here. I know of no person elected here and I do not understand your use of the word theme.  sometimes we vote, we try to build a unified position to be submitted to fora such as ICANN and the IGF. So it is up to us to decide which way to go. (I have never seen a position tendered to ICANN from this list -- I must read them, where are they?) I am sure more people will be asking to leave, or simply unsubscribe, if the list continues as is. (more important -- how many have been excluded? Not just by membership criteria but by shunning) What kind of online caucus we want? This is what we need to answer. I think all of us want a plural caucus in which opinions are diverse and the resulting debate might lead us to build consensus, but first and foremost, I for one want a caucus in which I know whom I am debating with. (yes I have known those who judge the worth of what a woman says by her pedigree rather than the value of what she has to offer.  Yes I have often been lied to about the agenda of those with which I debated  --  It is good to look a fellow in the eye and judge his conviction -- but it is wrong not to allow a man a place at the table based upon his lack of an NGO triple digit salary) Finally, I am puzzled (and curious) as to what class or faith Mr Dierker (whom I do not know about either) is stamping me with. Nor his qualifications to teach Dr Müller (I for one did not request lessons). (if you still think I care about your class or faith you cannot read. I am however quite interested in anyone who has lived in Canada & Brazil and has lived half a lifetime running "from" rather than "to") frt rgds As for me, know this;  I am a highwayman. I am a bastard and illegitimate son. I have lived in a tent, in a cave, on five continents, alone, in a commune and in jail.  I have suffered false charges and have also evaded prosecution. I have prosecuted others and have suffered the slings and arrows of a fight. I have held sick and dying children and I have children of my own. I am a cancer survivor. My origins are said to be Irish and Italian, but I was raised by German Americans, in the heart of Navajoland and my family includes my Vietnamese wife.  But I do professionally analyze and strategize computer models for those interested in manipulating criteria bases to qualify for a gain. Would any of that be on your membership criteria?? --c.a. Eric Dierker wrote: > (this is for the education of Milton and Carlos and in honor of > Martin, Gandhi, Bobby and Malcolm) Yes Carlos you quoted the same > words verbatim!!! > > October 4th 1953. Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA. Locale: Famed > Phoenix Country Club. Activity: Emergency meeting of the BoD re: > Membership. > > It was learned today that there was a Jewish family that was > inadvertently sold property within the Country Club. Emergency > meeting to discuss enforcement of membership criteria, and exclusion > of undesirables.  After much debate using words such as Kikes and > Niggers the following was concluded; > > "this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription (application) process in which people no one knows or > about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the > list. (club) We would at least clean up....." > > The only things worse than racial bigotry is bigotry based on faith > and on class.  This horrible example of Carlos' way was only for a > Country Club.  Can one imagine going back 50 years in bias and > prejudice on a list about governance. Clearly we must say -- Forgive > them lord, for they know not what they do. > > Governance has never and will never be about the Carlos' and Miltons' > deciding what is best for the people. They may exclude me and my > brothers from their club, but they will never ever govern my people. > > --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] > Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Ian > Peter" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:34 > PM > > > Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a > re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom > one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We > would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and > other mystery folks. > > It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. > > We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out > loud! ;) > > --c.a. > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the >> list. However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the >> ICG charter for each case, we cannot take action against them. In >> the meantime we suggest that you set your Spam or other email >> filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of >> messages by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". >> All of us must take individual action to avoid destruction of the >> list. The co-coordinators cannot do it with administrative action >> alone, because we must protect the right to legitimate discussion >> and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and >> overwhelm a list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not >> participate in discussions with unproductive members and use >> filters to control the messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a >> change to a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and >> opine if you think appropriate. >> >> Best, Ginger * * >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 23:29:50 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 20:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: <4A7E3684.9050906@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <433942.92604.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I thought SA gave apartide a ride.  I thought the good ole south gave seperate but equal a shot. I understand bi-cameral, and upper and lower houses.  I understand the ICANN experiment ridded itself of stakeholders representation. I went through check point Charley and I have visited areas around the Palestinian "borders" -- but I do not quite understand two lists for governance. If I am not mistaken Brazil went through a period where "passing" was required for some races to join a civil society.   Of some relevance is my assistant & daughter attending Berkeley as a Society and the Environment coed. My son graduating UCSanta Cruz and my own degrees from California Western School of Law and the Public Safety Training Academy in San Diego. So my opinions may be skewed. (but in my defense my Eldest is Director of Operations for a New York congressman) --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Yehuda Katz" Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 2:37 AM Only in California, as the say goes ... :) --c.a. Yehuda Katz wrote: > Carlos, > > I have offered-up two suggestions/possibilitites: > > 1.  Augmenting the list > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00069.html > > 2. Create a nEwe Space > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00075.html > > - > > I.M.O.: Lists' have lives, and this one has come to a fork-in-the-road. > > It's time to pursue another tact with regards to IG and all that encompases the > Internet. That said, I feel creating a new mail list for the company of Thoses > who see that a Community for: .Web, .Ewe, ,Etc... all which resides outside the > realm of Icann's DNS jurisdiction, can be very useful. > > I live in a place where holistic perspectives are the norm [Sonoma County, > Sebastopol, California, USA], and it's this norm that has fostered things like: > O'Reilly Publications, RSS Protocal, Agilent Technologies, and the > Telecommunications Valley. You may call that "alternative thinking" ... many > do, but we call that normal. Conversely we realize the rest of the world > 'thinks' spmewhat differently than we do, and we welcome that. > > This post can't convey how Berkeley-esk an atmosphere it is here in California, > Its just a positive diverse enviroment, too which that diversity is ... the > Mother of Invention. > > I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton > Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the > Father of Email (SMTP protocol), and other allied Brethren who read in the > wings of this mail-list group. > > I think We are all smart enough to know when to branch-out, erect our > postition, and reach for something higher. > > Enough Crawling... Evolve > > - > Holism - Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism > > University of California, Berkeley > http://www.berkeley.edu/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 9 01:10:18 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 22:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, the foundation Message-ID: <890589.58284.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> In that it is not the governance that needs to be protected from the users. In that it is the users that must be protected from overbearing, self appointed, non-representative rulers in governance;   Know all persons by these presence.    1. All internet users regardless of Race, Color, National or Geographic Origins, sex, age, language, Education or lack thereof shall be treated equally.  (we may want to take a page from A2K and add handicapped, a page from our Gay and Lesbian users and add sexual preference, and just to be careful add faith and creed)   2. No organization shall be created that in any way purports to govern the internet that excludes any class or segment of society, including simple users without other stake, from representation therein.   3. No organization shall be formed by any nation in their sole national capacity that purports to govern any other nations useage of the Internet.   4. No commercial or governmental interest shall ever be given priority over the rights of users.   5. No government action shall in any way ever cause there to be an interruption in user access to the Internet.   6. No private or commercial provider shall allow or promote or cause to ocurr any abridgement of the basic human rights of Speech, Faith, Press or due process.   7. No restrictions upon the useage of the internet shall be promulgated by anything less than legitimate duly elected individuals. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Aug 9 02:46:43 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:46:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A7E70D3.5020605@cavebear.com> On 08/08/2009 06:03 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > I think its time to evolve, WE have some wonderful people here, Dr Milton > Müller and a host of other Minds of Academia worldwide, Karl Auerbach the > Father of Email (SMTP protocol I had very little to do with the development of email structures and protocols. Much credit for that goes to Dave Crocker. My one claim to fame for email is that way, way, way back (in the early 1980's) at Interactive Systems (the first commercial Unix company) I build an email system built on an underlying "queued file transfer mechanism" (hop-by-hop transfer of a chunk of application layer data from one program to another) upon which we built an email system (and printing system, and many other systems). Eric A. of Sendmail fame heard me talk about that at a Usenix in San Francisco and what I said may or may not have had an effect on what eventually became "sendmail", a program that worked on much the same underlying idea. My main work back in the ancient era was on operating system security for the US and UK governments (formal proof of correctness, capability based architectures, etc) and secure networking. Unfortunately most of that work is unavailable to the public and probably won't be publicly publishable until several more decades pass. But you can partially blame me for helping cause the split of IP from TCP (in the original Cerf/Kahn design TCP was a monolithic protocol), CIFS and SNMP and some other stuff. What all of this is to say is that we ought not to deify any one of us who were lucky to be part of "the early days" of the net. I certainly am not any smarter than many newcomers. Which leads me a link to internet governance - I have noticed that users of the net tend to give too much deference to technical assertions from some of us "old guys". We who built the net have a lot of pride in the net and that pride can induce a subtle parental protective suspicion and hostility against new ideas that might change our baby. My favorite phrase is one attributed to Thomas Aquinas: "Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus" ("The argument from authority is the weakest.") - I like the irony of using a saint, an authority of the Catholic church as an assertion of authority to say that assertions of authority might be wrong. As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues of internet governance is the problem of separating those things that are mandated by technical necessity from those thing that are merely one possible way that a technology can be used but that has ossified into being perceived as the only way. Most of us have the ability to "question authority" in a political context. But to make internet governance work we are going to have to learn to be equally skeptical of assertions of technical necessity and be sufficiently skilled in the technical arts that we can make valid independent assessments. --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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 8 18:33:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 15:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: <4A7DB70E.5070703@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <37765.81744.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (this is for the education of Milton and Carlos and in honor of Martin, Gandhi, Bobby and Malcolm) Yes Carlos you quoted the same words verbatim!!!   October 4th 1953. Location: Phoenix, Arizona USA. Locale: Famed Phoenix Country Club. Activity: Emergency meeting of the BoD re: Membership.   It was learned today that there was a Jewish family that was inadvertently sold property within the Country Club. Emergency meeting to discuss enforcement of membership criteria, and exclusion of undesirables.  After much debate using words such as Kikes and Niggers the following was concluded;   "this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a re-subscription (application) process in which people no one knows or about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. (club) We would at least clean up....."    The only things worse than racial bigotry is bigotry based on faith and on class.  This horrible example of Carlos' way was only for a Country Club.  Can one imagine going back 50 years in bias and prejudice on a list about governance. Clearly we must say -- Forgive them lord, for they know not what they do.   Governance has never and will never be about the Carlos' and Miltons' deciding what is best for the people. They may exclude me and my brothers from their club, but they will never ever govern my people. --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: From: Carlos Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: "Ian Peter" Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 5:34 PM Ginger, this can only be solved by clear membership rules and a re-subscription process in which people no one knows or about whom one cannot obtain reliable references should not enter the list. We would at least clean up the list of the "jeffrey williams" types and other mystery folks. It has worked well in our regional list in LA&C. We might even have dogs participating in the list, for crying out loud! ;) --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. However, > until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for each case, > we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest that you set your > Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages before they reach your > inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages by > trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators cannot > do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the right to > legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a list. > Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in discussions with > unproductive members and use filters to control the messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to a > moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > Best, > Ginger * > * > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 9 09:31:08 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 06:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: 4A7E70D3.5020605@cavebear.com Message-ID: karl scribe > As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues of internet governance is the problem of separating those things that are mandated by technical necessity from those thing that are merely one possible way that a technology can be used but that has ossified into being perceived as the only way. - And this statement gives rise to: Why diversity is important. (The possibility of something being one way or another way) That question falls into the field of 'Complexity Science' What Makes a System Complex? What defines a system as complex, as opposed to being merely “complicated”? The answer lies in the presence of four factors: * A population of diverse agents, all of which are * Connected, with behaviors and actions that are * Interdependent, and that exhibit * Adaptation. Understanding complex systems is important for several reasons: * They’re often unpredictable. * They sometimes produce events with global ramifications. * They’re remarkably robust and can withstand substantial trauma and variation. The internet is in a state of 'Emergance'(as defined in Complexity Science), the spontaneous creation of order and functionality from the bottom up. Icann has not grasped that concept, nor do I belive it to grasped that concept. Jon Postel's premis has been exploited by commercial economics, because of the 'Mentality' of those in Icann. Its not just the Greed, the mentally-invisioned amount$ which can be Capitolized via channels provided by Icann, it is also the created perception of Power. My appologies Milton, but maybe if your publisher would have named your book diffrently than 'Ruling the Root', 'the mentality' of Internet success would be different. (I'm not blaming, I'm just saying). So if your intrested in learning about Complexity Science, here a link to a download (which I would not normally provide), but I think it would help some of you to open your eyes. http://www.tactools.org/ttc-video-undestanding-complexity.html -- Ginger and Ian want to get some work done, my suggestions were only to help them accomplish that objective. Let's see what they have to say. If you don't come to the Mountain, the Mountains is gonna come to you. Kind regards____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 9 15:27:53 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:57:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC members at the LAC Regional IGF Message-ID: <4A7F2339.1080500@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Aug 9 16:05:20 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:05:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] UNGIS: Invitation --> Open Consultations on the Financial Mechanisms / 8-9 October 2009 / Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland In-Reply-To: <4a71d8e8.09b6660a.50d2.ffffd9c5@mx.google.com> References: <4a71d8e8.09b6660a.50d2.ffffd9c5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <004101ca192c$ba1c4230$2e54c690$@com.br> I will be glad to send to my network. Best, Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: Renate Bloem (Gmail) [mailto:renate.bloem at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] UNGIS: Invitation --> Open Consultations on the Financial Mechanisms / 8-9 October 2009 / Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland FYI -------------- Dear Renate, As you have seen few minutes ago, in my previous mail we have distributed widely an invitation letter to the Open Consultation on the Financial Mechanisms for Meeting the Challenges of ICT for Development to be held from 8-9 October 2009 at Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland. This meeting is organized jointly by chair and co-chairs of the United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS), i.e. ITU, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNDP and UNECA. This event will be hosted by ITU. We are very much interested in contributions to this meeting from the civil society. We would like to request you to forward this document to the civil society stakeholders using all possible information channels. Contributions to the meeting may be submitted to the UNGIS Secretariat not later than 20 September 2009. Online registration will be opened shortly at www.ungis.org . With kind regards, Jaroslaw K. PONDER ---------------------------------------------------------- Strategy and Policy Coordinator International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Tel.: 00 41 22 730 6065 Fax.: 00 41 22 733 7256 E-mail: Jaroslaw.Ponder at itu.int Web: http://www.itu.int Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 9 18:04:22 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:04:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 9 18:06:15 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:06:15 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Karl: Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:38 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > On 08/07/2009 05:56 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > > Avri: well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee > > on Energy and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have > > to agree (that is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. > > what happens if they don't? And what is going to happen around the > > world as US insists that the DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > The answer to that question is one that depends on whether one > unquestioningly accepts certain assumptions as truths or whether one > takes a deeper look. > > The most basic of those assumptions is that there must be exactly one > DNS for the internet. > > Technically that is not true. > > There can be (and in fact there are) many. Most are badly operated, an > unfortunate fact that has caused the disrepute of the operators to > unfairly splash onto the idea. > > What we need to recognize is that the real issue is not the multiplicity > of DNS systems or DNS roots or DNS root zone but rather the consistency > among them. Users and providers (and people who have to repair the net) > do not like and will shun inconsistency. > > I have written about this, in particular how re-evaluation of our > assumptions in this regard, can give us a path out of our centralized > regulatory mess and also solve the TLD wars that have consumed a good > part of ICANN this last decade: > > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000331.html > > (You could read the whole thing, but for the purposes of this email, you > could scan down to the section "The Alternative History") > > The point of that note is to argue that if we adopt a slightly relaxed > definition of "consistent" that the allowance of competing root zones > that are disseminated by competing systems of roots gives us a path > forward - it allows for the de-centralized growth of DNS and also give > those communities that wish to reduce their view of the internet > landscape (as some religious groups want to do) a means to do so without > constraining those who do not want to go along. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 9 18:15:01 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:15:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Thanks for the interesting analysis, Wolfgang. Comments of mine below > -----Original Message----- > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. I am not sure what you mean by the "how question." If you mean that DoC and the Obama admin have to figure out how to avoid doing what Congress wants, that is easy. Until and unless Congress passes a law (and that raises more problems for a US-centric position than you might think) DoC can do whatever it wants. If you mean that DoC has to figure out what to replace the JPA with, again I see no problem here. It can take the advice of IGP (yeh, they do that a lot, eh?) and instigate an international agreement; it can extend the JPA, it can let it expire and do nothing. What matters is the policy they are pursuing. > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government This is a very likely outcome, but I cannot fathom why you call it "creative innovation." It's basically the status quo. Indeed, it doesn't sound that different from what Congress advocated. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 9 18:26:00 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:26:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Karl I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost the Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA contract....but the JPA???? Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN can remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional basis for private contracts - without having an overlay of a politicized national government department looking over its shoulder. In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for private law. They are quite distinct. > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vanda Scartezini > Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; > igf_members at intgovforum.org > Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: > > I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the > > permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress in > the > > world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not > > continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. > > This is a *very* complicated issue. > > First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician > in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled > by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." > > And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and > I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and TLDs > and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be > an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. > > There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to move. > Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to > receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise questions > about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones > Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN > which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these > matters.) > > Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of contracts > (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and > settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the > jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I > saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal > entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane > national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would > have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted > under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract > with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the > laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants > but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It > would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. > > Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing > to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in > modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of > trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in > restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to > undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international entity > when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves doing > in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our > modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has > operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic > nature? > > I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, > corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN > merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend > to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is not > all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of > ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. > > I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded > laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. > (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the > most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we > search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that > California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as > good as most of the better places. > > What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the > US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. > > Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost > packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to vanish > into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very > pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. > > But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was supposed > to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name > resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular > that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately > translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any > query source or query subject. > > I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, > several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important > than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. > > I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done > we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and > non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they > are done. > > I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed > if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to > have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sun Aug 9 21:10:43 2009 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 21:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: It is not impossible to imagine ways of rooting ICANN in, say, California private law once it's 'set free', but it is not easy, and hard to make stick without something as heavy-duty as a treaty. So in practice, I think the two issues are more tightly coupled than advocates of the 'cut ICANN loose' vision want to admit. I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva about four seconds after the US government cut the tether. And I bet the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but years old. On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Karl I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do > the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost the > Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA > contract....but the JPA???? > > Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN can > remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional basis for > private contracts - without having an overlay of a politicized national > government department looking over its shoulder. > > In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral > oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for > private law. They are quite distinct. -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 9 22:51:37 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:51:37 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A7F8B39.6020804@cavebear.com> On 08/09/2009 03:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation > of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for > multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? I personally have not dredged into DNSSEC to make my own assessment. (Although in preparing this reply I have lightly dug into the DNSSEC RFCs.) A few months ago I asked this question of someone I trust who is deeply involved with DNSSEC. His answer was that DNSSEC would not have the effect of blocking competing roots. (He may have changed his opinion since then, but I have not heard to the contrary.) His rationale was to the effect that since DNSSEC is really, just like DNS, a hierarchy of keys, what matters is that there is a downwards looking chain of keys (via signed DS/DNSKEY records) from whatever one accepts as "the root" (or "trust anchor".) From my reading of DNSSEC RFC's a DNSSEC capable competing root would need to provide DS records for all of the TLDs that have a zone key (DNSKEY) record. That, I believe (but I can be wrong) can be done by the competing root, as part of its root zone generation process, going to each of the TLDs that are in its zone and asking for the DNSKEY record and then computing an appropriate DS record for inclusion into the competing root zone. It seems to me that given that we today can run DNSSEC child zones under non DNSSEC parent zones, that it would be feasible for some competing roots to be DNSSEC signed (which DS records for delegations) and others not. But again I'm speaking from light reading not from deep knowledge. (For a root with a few hundred delegations that, assuming I'm not completely off base, would be fairly easy to do. For a huge TLD such as .com I would imagine that this would require something like a DNS version of a Google-bot to continuously dredge through that TLD's clients [e.g. example.com] to find new and updated DNSKEY records.) Now I could be absolutely and totally wrong in this. But from my (admittedly light) reading of DNSSEC all of the signing such that a child-zone (e.g. example.com is a child of .com and .com is a child of a root) contains no cryptographic materials to verify the parent. Rather that the parent provides crypto materials of the child. This suggests to me that a child zone could have any number of DNSSEC parents as long as each parent itself has a DS record for the child and that that DS record is signed by the DNSKEY of the parent, a key that can be different for each parent. I.e. multiple parents implies the ability of multiple roots. Again I could be dead-to-rights wrong on all of this. But for a couple of years I've been asking to be corrected in specific terms and so far nobody has taken me to task. It would be worthwhile to move this out of the abstract and to set up a DNSSEC testbed to test these exact scenarios. --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 karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 9 23:21:11 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:21:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A7F9227.4000702@cavebear.com> On 08/09/2009 03:26 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do > the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost > the Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA > contract....but the JPA???? Given the nonesense that is flying around the US political system right now - for example the "birthers" denial that our President is Constitutionally entitled to hold office - I don't think it is unrealistic to believe that those who want to replace our current Congress Critters in next year's elections will use any weapon that comes to hand, including asserting that dropping the oversight of the Memorandum of Understanding/JPA (same thing) would be near treasonous abandonment of John Wayne and America. The world of US political discourse is so negatively charged that we have to realize that many Congress Critters could realistically feel that we are facing a Neo-McCarthy era in which being negatively labeled by an opponent could lead to the end of political effectiveness if not a political career. Of course in reality we would hope that Congress Critters would act with reason and insight. But is it wrong to leaven hope with a bit of recognition of the poisonous context in which Congress Critters have to act? > Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN > can remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional > basis for private contracts - without having an overlay of a > politicized national government department looking over its > shoulder. When I read ICANN's plan for splattering itself it was pretty clear that the intent was to abandon most ties with the US except as necessary to maintain existing contracts. It was a bizarre system of corporations in various places with unique laws in which it seemed that the board of ICANN-US would also occupy seats on each ICANN-elsewhere. And registrars and registries would make contracts with the nearby ICANN-somewhere under the laws of that -somewhere. It would be a mess of divine proportions that would totally frustrate even the most vacuous Enron-like conception of accountability. It is extraordinarily difficult to say that ICANN is California without also saying that ICANN is USA. The laws of the two places are very interdependent - for example the duties of board members, although mainly defined by California, are strongly affected by Federal laws about immunity of volunteer directors and the activities of bodies, such as ICANN, that have Federal tax exemptions. I like California law (I am, of course, biased) and I operate California corporations. But that means that I am more than painfully familiar with how readily The Feds reach in and tell us what to do and who to do it with (or more frequently, who not to do it with.) > In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral > oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for > private law. They are quite distinct. I'd be happy to accept that, but I don't know how that could be in concrete terms. We have to remember that ICANN was formed in a whirl in which foundations of authority were simply ignored in a shell-game like atmosphere. That lack of clear lines is coming back to haunt. ICANN and NTIA's source of authority is more like that of Emperor Norton of San Francisco than the former Emperors of China, i.e. a product of assertion and short-term acquiescence by a few rather than long-term acquiescence by many. --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 goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Mon Aug 10 00:34:51 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:34:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC members at the LAC Regional IGF In-Reply-To: <4A7F2339.1080500@gmail.com> References: <4A7F2339.1080500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0908092134y73ac74f9j9d1879775e0c9233@mail.gmail.com> ok Ginger, see you there Roxana 2009/8/9 Ginger Paque > Hi everyone, > > I know that other IGC members will be at the regional IGF in Rio August > 11th to 13th, as I will be. Can we meet at the first coffee break on > Tuesday? Who will be there? > > I look forward to seeing you there. > Best, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Aug 10 01:04:41 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:04:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Milton, You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those including funding for future DoC budgets : ). But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems want re ICANN or anything else. However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least Wolfgang's 3rd option. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 10 04:31:05 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:31:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Here's my blog post on the latest DC follies regarding the JPA: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/8/9/4283282.html ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 1:04 AM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Milton, You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those including funding for future DoC budgets : ). But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems want re ICANN or anything else. However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least Wolfgang's 3rd option. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 10 04:35:23 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:35:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F40@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >It is not impossible to imagine ways of rooting ICANN in, say, California >private law once it's 'set free', but it is not easy, and hard to make >stick without something as heavy-duty as a treaty. So in practice, I >think the two issues are more tightly coupled than advocates of the 'cut >ICANN loose' vision want to admit. Agreed, which is why we (IGP) proposed that the transition should be rooted in an international agreement. Unfortunately, the Congress is not calling for binding ICANN to Calif. law (or even U.S. law) it is calling for putting a JPA-like process in place indefinitely. I hope you'd agree that this gives us more of the worst of both worlds scenario... >I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva about >four seconds after the US government cut the tether. And I bet the >contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but years old. Probably so. On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Karl I think your heart is in the right place on these issues but you do > the world a disservice by lending credence to this bogus "who lost the > Internet" argument. Maybe if we were talking about the IANA > contract....but the JPA???? > > Your points about contracts are money flows are very good, but ICANN can > remain rooted in California law - or any other jurisdictional basis for > private contracts - without having an overlay of a politicized national > government department looking over its shoulder. > > In other words, don't confuse the issue of US unilateral > oversight/control with the issue of ICANN's jurisdictional home for > private law. They are quite distinct. -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Mon Aug 10 08:55:21 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:55:21 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7F8B39.6020804@cavebear.com> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A7C7471.8070104@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A7F8B39.6020804@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908100555r36a38cbcqe42abbe029401a6b@mail.gmail.com> DNSSEC is a bit of a joke and no one should consider it seriously. Essentially DNSSEC attempts to address a bug in DNS that has existed since the beginning of DNS deployment. The security issues in DNS have nothing to do with the DNS protocol but are directly related to issues in the UDP transport protocol. DNSSEC attempts to address these issues by incorporating an addition layer of complexity into the DNS through the deployment of trust anchors along the DNS hierarchy. The actual security issue in the UDP protocol is never addressed in DNSSEC. That security issue exists because of the nature of the UDP protocol. Without going into the complex details let me say that UDP is easy to spoof. DNSSEC just makes it slightly harder to spoof. A solution to the UDP problem has been developed by Bernstein. It's called DNSCurve. http://bit.ly/pJVq4 enjoy joe baptista p.s. at one time DNSSEC could jeopardize alternative root operations. That has been fixed but to my knowledge never tested. On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/09/2009 03:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation >> of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for >> multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? >> > > I personally have not dredged into DNSSEC to make my own assessment. > (Although in preparing this reply I have lightly dug into the DNSSEC RFCs.) > > A few months ago I asked this question of someone I trust who is deeply > involved with DNSSEC. His answer was that DNSSEC would not have the effect > of blocking competing roots. (He may have changed his opinion since then, > but I have not heard to the contrary.) > > His rationale was to the effect that since DNSSEC is really, just like DNS, > a hierarchy of keys, what matters is that there is a downwards looking chain > of keys (via signed DS/DNSKEY records) from whatever one accepts as "the > root" (or "trust anchor".) > > From my reading of DNSSEC RFC's a DNSSEC capable competing root would need > to provide DS records for all of the TLDs that have a zone key (DNSKEY) > record. That, I believe (but I can be wrong) can be done by the competing > root, as part of its root zone generation process, going to each of the TLDs > that are in its zone and asking for the DNSKEY record and then computing an > appropriate DS record for inclusion into the competing root zone. > > It seems to me that given that we today can run DNSSEC child zones under > non DNSSEC parent zones, that it would be feasible for some competing roots > to be DNSSEC signed (which DS records for delegations) and others not. But > again I'm speaking from light reading not from deep knowledge. > > (For a root with a few hundred delegations that, assuming I'm not > completely off base, would be fairly easy to do. For a huge TLD such as > .com I would imagine that this would require something like a DNS version of > a Google-bot to continuously dredge through that TLD's clients [e.g. > example.com] to find new and updated DNSKEY records.) > > Now I could be absolutely and totally wrong in this. But from my > (admittedly light) reading of DNSSEC all of the signing such that a > child-zone (e.g. example.com is a child of .com and .com is a child of a > root) contains no cryptographic materials to verify the parent. Rather that > the parent provides crypto materials of the child. This suggests to me that > a child zone could have any number of DNSSEC parents as long as each parent > itself has a DS record for the child and that that DS record is signed by > the DNSKEY of the parent, a key that can be different for each parent. I.e. > multiple parents implies the ability of multiple roots. > > Again I could be dead-to-rights wrong on all of this. But for a couple of > years I've been asking to be corrected in specific terms and so far nobody > has taken me to task. > > It would be worthwhile to move this out of the abstract and to set up a > DNSSEC testbed to test these exact scenarios. > > > --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 > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 10 10:00:55 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:00:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 21:10:43 on Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law writes >I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva >about four seconds after the US government cut the tether. And I bet >the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but >years old. They've been looking at it seriously for about a year. It's one of those strange ICANN-ims that seems *really* important one minute, and they don't want to talk about the next. Having done a study of which jurisdictions would be "best" they came up with Belgium and Geneva, although my own experience of not-for-profits in the UK leads me to be sceptical of the stated reasons they dismissed the UK [hint: it doesn't have to be a Registered Charity]. (Criteria were things like friendly company/tax law for not-for-profits, good healthcare and other employee benefits, freedom from excessive visa requirements for visitors, etc etc). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 10 10:18:25 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Message-ID: <20237.43354.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> All these comments are not from some stone tablet - they are not immutable -- I offer for consideration only.   Congress can stop funding for DoC "projects".  (if dad tells son to go to store to get beer, dad and son are in agreement  ---  son must ask mom for money ---  Mom says no -- no beer.) Non profit status -- hmm a charitable that receives more than 90% of its revenues from fees charged for license, service or privilege  --  not quite kosher. Another state and/or competitive bidder can challenge the removal of an essential government subcontract. The feds can revoke the "whatever the hell kind of 501(c) 3" status ICANN operates under.   California can revoke permission not to pay tax.  California can not enter into a treaty. ICANN cannot enter into negotiations with countries without California and the Fed permission. California can insist on a more stringent non citizen hiring policy.   The mechanism for the JPA may allow for total suspension of ICANNs right to collect and maintain funds for services pending blah, blah, blah. The US Gov can totally nationalize all functions and operations of ICANN. HSA could, in the blink of an eye seize all assets of ICANN.   So I do not think we are talking about what could be done. We are talking about what should be done.   Sorry just the musings of a Troll ;-) --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Lee W McKnight wrote: From: Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: "Milton L Mueller" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 5:04 AM Milton, You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those including funding for future DoC budgets : ). But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems want re ICANN or anything else. However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least Wolfgang's 3rd option. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law. When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Wolfgang, > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee. > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > committees can do to get what they want. > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > halle.de] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Avri: > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will.  what happens if they > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > Wolfgang: > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > beyond: > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > committee > In this case there three possible consequences: > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > taxpayers money). > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > an answer to the "How"-question. > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > after five years. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 10 10:30:58 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908100555r36a38cbcqe42abbe029401a6b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <244944.76851.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Come on you guys!  Look at these two consecutive posts.  You two are both of an engineering ilk and yet you use totally non-standard language and even different adjectives, nouns and adverbs -- not to mention names, to speak of exactly the same thing.   If engineers cannot even agree on the same language to use to describe a process, how could we possibly draft any comprehensive or even partial guidelines to governance. --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Joe Baptista wrote: From: Joe Baptista Subject: Re: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Karl Auerbach" Cc: "Milton L Mueller" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 12:55 PM DNSSEC is a bit of a joke and no one should consider it seriously. Essentially DNSSEC attempts to address a bug in DNS that has existed since the beginning of DNS deployment. The security issues in DNS have nothing to do with the DNS protocol but are directly related to issues in the UDP transport protocol. DNSSEC attempts to address these issues by incorporating an addition layer of complexity into the DNS through the deployment of trust anchors along the DNS hierarchy.  The actual security issue in the UDP protocol is never addressed in DNSSEC. That security issue exists because of the nature of the UDP protocol. Without going into the complex details let me say that UDP is easy to spoof. DNSSEC just makes it slightly harder to spoof. A solution to the UDP problem has been developed by Bernstein. It's called DNSCurve. http://bit.ly/pJVq4 enjoy joe baptista p.s. at one time DNSSEC could jeopardize alternative root operations. That has been fixed but to my knowledge never tested. On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: On 08/09/2009 03:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Do you agree with me and with Philip Hallam-Baker that implementation of DNSSEC makes it much more difficult, if not impossible for multiple, consistent roots to be maintained? I personally have not dredged into DNSSEC to make my own assessment. (Although in preparing this reply I have lightly dug into the DNSSEC RFCs.) A few months ago I asked this question of someone I trust who is deeply involved with DNSSEC.  His answer was that DNSSEC would not have the effect of blocking competing roots.  (He may have changed his opinion since then, but I have not heard to the contrary.) His rationale was to the effect that since DNSSEC is really, just like DNS, a hierarchy of keys, what matters is that there is a downwards looking chain of keys (via signed DS/DNSKEY records) from whatever one accepts as "the root" (or "trust anchor".) >From my reading of DNSSEC RFC's a DNSSEC capable competing root would need to provide DS records for all of the TLDs that have a zone key (DNSKEY) record.  That, I believe (but I can be wrong) can be done by the competing root, as part of its root zone generation process, going to each of the TLDs that are in its zone and asking for the DNSKEY record and then computing an appropriate DS record for inclusion into the competing root zone. It seems to me that given that we today can run DNSSEC child zones under non DNSSEC parent zones, that it would be feasible for some competing roots to be DNSSEC signed (which DS records for delegations) and others not.  But again I'm speaking from light reading not from deep knowledge. (For a root with a few hundred delegations that, assuming I'm not completely off base, would be fairly easy to do.  For a huge TLD such as .com I would imagine that this would require something like a DNS version of a Google-bot to continuously dredge through that TLD's clients [e.g. example.com] to find new and updated DNSKEY records.) Now I could be absolutely and totally wrong in this.  But from my (admittedly light) reading of DNSSEC all of the signing such that a child-zone (e.g. example.com is a child of .com and .com is a child of a root) contains no cryptographic materials to verify the parent.  Rather that the parent provides crypto materials of the child.  This suggests to me that a child zone could have any number of DNSSEC parents as long as each parent itself has a DS record for the child and that that DS record is signed by the DNSKEY of the parent, a key that can be different for each parent.  I.e. multiple parents implies the ability of multiple roots. Again I could be dead-to-rights wrong on all of this.  But for a couple of years I've been asking to be corrected in specific terms and so far nobody has taken me to task. It would be worthwhile to move this out of the abstract and to set up a DNSSEC testbed to test these exact scenarios.                --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 -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ----------------------------------------------------------------  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 10 10:34:29 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <763885.39142.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Face it.  As they operate now. They could not be in compliance anywhere. Why doesn't someone ask the "jurisdiction" if they want ICANN. --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Roland Perry wrote: From: Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 2:00 PM In message , at 21:10:43 on Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law writes > I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva about four seconds after the US government cut the tether.  And I bet the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but years old. They've been looking at it seriously for about a year. It's one of those strange ICANN-ims that seems *really* important one minute, and they don't want to talk about the next. Having done a study of which jurisdictions would be "best" they came up with Belgium and Geneva, although my own experience of not-for-profits in the UK leads me to be sceptical of the stated reasons they dismissed the UK [hint: it doesn't have to be a Registered Charity]. (Criteria were things like friendly company/tax law for not-for-profits, good healthcare and other employee benefits, freedom from excessive visa requirements for visitors, etc etc). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 10 11:14:12 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:14:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <763885.39142.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <763885.39142.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <763885.39142.qm at web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 07:34:29 on Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Eric Dierker writes >Face it.  As they operate now. They could not be in compliance anywhere. >Why doesn't someone ask the "jurisdiction" if they want ICANN. I don't know what you mean by "compliance" in this context. If it's company and taxation law, and somewhere they can have the most prudent framework for contracts with third parties, then all the places I mentioned should be fine. >--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Roland Perry wrote: > > >From: Roland Perry >Subject: Re: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 2:00 PM > > >In message , >at 21:10:43 on Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of >Law writes >> I'd say, if I were ICANN's lawyer, that I'd want to move to Geneva >>about four seconds after the US government cut the tether.  And I bet >>the contingency plan to do just that is not just fully written, but >>years old. > >They've been looking at it seriously for about a year. It's one of >those strange ICANN-ims that seems *really* important one minute, and >they don't want to talk about the next. > >Having done a study of which jurisdictions would be "best" they came up >with Belgium and Geneva, although my own experience of not-for-profits >in the UK leads me to be sceptical of the stated reasons they dismissed >the UK [hint: it doesn't have to be a Registered Charity]. > >(Criteria were things like friendly company/tax law for >not-for-profits, good healthcare and other employee benefits, freedom >from excessive visa requirements for visitors, etc etc). >-- Roland Perry >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 10 13:23:37 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:23:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <955588.20095.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193DD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B7D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED05@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B233F3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <61a136f40908101023q66f94f72wa7146b41d71f4c37@mail.gmail.com> The vast majority of the domestic audience tends to be woefully ignorant of the political machinations in Washington! But it would be imprudent to think those of us on the periphery don't know when "we hear the voice of Jacob even as we feel the hand of Esau". What you have is convergence of views to the point of action. You message in a way that will get the reaction you want. And any lobbyist worth his/her retainer would know how to message every single congressperson for effect. The play made is purely a tactical maneuver! Carlton Samuels On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Here's my blog post on the latest DC follies regarding the JPA: > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/8/9/4283282.html > > ________________________________________ > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 1:04 AM > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Milton, > > You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC > budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line > with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and > policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those > including funding for future DoC budgets : ). > > But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems > want re ICANN or anything else. > > However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky > bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least > Wolfgang's 3rd option. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless > Congress passes a law. > > When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" > and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to > do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, > and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested. > > Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on > the IGP site as soon as I can. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > > > Wolfgang, > > > > Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy > > and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight > committee. > > > > But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as > > Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional > > committees can do to get what they want. > > > > I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- > > halle.de] > > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA > > > > Avri: > > well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy > > and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree > (that > > is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will. what happens if they > > don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that > the > > DNS is theirs, all theirs? > > > > > > Wolfgang: > > > > IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and > > beyond: > > > > 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional > > committee > > In this case there three possible consequences: > > a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial > > discussion the rest of the world will accept it. > > b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could > > paralyze ICANN for the years ahead > > c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a > > diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. > In > > this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to > > exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US > > taxpayers money). > > > > 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation > > This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US > and > > for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other > > nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). > However > > it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also > > an answer to the "How"-question. > > > > 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise > > Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand > feed > > the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but > > independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the > > other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government > > (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could > > be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA. > > Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it > > after five years. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu Mon Aug 10 16:02:43 2009 From: jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hunker) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:02:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] conference of interest to subscribers of the governance list Message-ID: <00f501ca19f5$86a0af80$93e20e80$@cmu.edu> All, As General Chair, I am pleased to invite you and your colleagues to attend the upcoming International Symposium on Global Information Governance (ISGIG), to be held in Prague, Czech Republic on September 15-17. The Internet of the Future is the theme of ISGIG 2009. ISGIG 2009 is unique in being specifically designed to bring together and improve communication among diverse and normally separate communities -- academics, regulators, compliance officers, business managers and IT managers -- by exposing problems, and uncovering potential problems, in the areas of privacy, compliance, governance, and risk. Each of these issues creates situations for both conflict and cooperation among different constituencies. Participants will hear from and interact with a distinguished line-up of international experts in the fields of Internet governance, privacy and innovative technology trends. The agenda has been designed to offer many opportunities for networking and open discussion among the delegates and speakers. Keynote speakers at ISGIG 2009: * Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, * Stewart Baker, Former First Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S.A., * Jacques Bus, Head of Unit, Trust & Security in ICT, Research, European Commission, * David Farber, Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, U.S.A. We hope you will attend this important conference to participate in the discussions and hear from people of influence in this ever-changing field. Further information can be found at www.isgig.org Thank you, Jeffrey Hunker Jeffrey Hunker Associates LLC hunker at jeffreyhunker.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 03:11:06 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:11:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton That's the way to go! Epecially when the Jeffreys of this world use the 'right to comment/ reply' to reply to every single posting and every comment on the list! Rui 2009/8/8 Milton L Mueller > Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because > she is a co-coordinator of the list. > > > > I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my > email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list > for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or > irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed > up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. > > > > --MM > > > ------------------------------ > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Dear IGC members: > > We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. > However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for > each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest > that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages > before they reach your inbox. > > A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages > by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take > individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators > cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the > right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. > > Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a > list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in > discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the > messages you receive. > > We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to > a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think > appropriate. > > Best, > Ginger > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 06:07:46 2009 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:52:46 +0545 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger and All, I would fully back the suggestions put forward by Charity. The best way is to ignore the trollers' message. I would stick with this mailing list though I had some difficult time reading those trolls. So, now I have been filtering and archiving these group emails, skipping my inbox. I go through them in my free time which saves me from getting disturbed just in case I happen to go though the trolls. One problem of this filtering is that if there is need of any URGENT response, it just gets skipped. Here in South Asia, we have a different versions of common story about a mischievous child, who mislead everyone in the village shouting "Loin Loin, taking my goat" and asking for help. After many such attempt to fool the villages, one other day, the Loin actually takes away his goat, and no one turns up for his help. Hope, every story has a moral and we do not have to become a deaf villagers Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Ginger, > > I do not really like the trolls that have been circulating for the past > weeks.. But I stick to this list because I know there are relevant > discussions that I would want to listen to. But personal attacks are a sign > of a weak argument. > > I do not expect that such trolls would just simply go away because they do > not pay much attention. In my experience, they won't go away easily as > trolls thrive on attention. Best to ignore them. So I have filtered my > emails from this list, too, because of the overwhelming amount of unrelated > discussions and attacks. > > Regards, > Charity > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. >> However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for >> each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest >> that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages >> before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages >> by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take >> individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators >> cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the >> right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a >> list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in >> discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the >> messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to >> a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think >> appropriate. >> >> Best, >> Ginger * >> * >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Aug 11 06:30:06 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:30:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: References: <4A7C357A.2010909@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A81482E.60105@rits.org.br> Given the situation of the list (unfortunately, the main means the caucus has at its disposal to build consensus -- and I insist the list is not the caucus) and the apparent impossibility of trying a resubscription process with new rules, this is what I am doing as well. But we should really think of ways to use Internet tools so we can express our views knowing, at a minimum, whom we are debating with. frt rgds --c.a. Rui Correia wrote: > Milton > > That's the way to go! Epecially when the Jeffreys of this world use the > 'right to comment/ reply' to reply to every single posting and every comment > on the list! > > Rui > > 2009/8/8 Milton L Mueller > >> Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because >> she is a co-coordinator of the list. >> >> >> >> I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my >> email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list >> for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or >> irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed >> up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. >> However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for >> each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest >> that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages >> before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages >> by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take >> individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators >> cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the >> right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a >> list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in >> discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the >> messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to >> a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think >> appropriate. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Aug 11 06:39:43 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:09:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A814A6F.5030907@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> I have to agree with the thrust of what Karl is saying here, and yes, >> we are >> not yet even asking the right questions in terms of deciding what >> internet >> governance might mean. > > This surprised me so I looked back at save mail from when we did the > JPA statement a couple months ago. At that time you likened ICANN's > linkage to the US government to colonialism and said that ICANN should > exercise non-violent resistance if "the colonial powers decide to > continue the JPA." Hi Bill I also looked back a couple of emails where i had characterized an insistently expressed viewpoint that people who are seeking to get ICANN out of US control are wasting their time as being 'unabashed neo-colonial'. And you offered rather violent resistance - in terms of some very extreme expressions and advice of good manners - to my expression. Just for old memories sake :). No particular purpose here. parminder > How does that fit with the view Karl lays out in his helpful post? > > Just wondering, > > Bill > >> >> When I last did any serious analysis of ICANN in 2004 I remember >> coming up >> with three phrases - eccentric in structure, illogical in scope, and >> incomplete in terms of internet governance. Though essentially >> disinterested >> in ICANN's goings on since then, I havent seen anything to convince me >> otherwise. >> >> To me then it is a huge dilemma how to move the IGF debate into an >> examination of what we need in terms of internet governance rather >> than a >> battle over an organisation that is doing something else. >> >> >> >> >> On 6/08/09 4:34 PM, "Karl Auerbach" wrote: >> >>> On 08/05/2009 04:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote: >>>> I do believe the Congressmen in the US has the right to advocate the >>>> permanence of ICANN under the US control, as I believe any Congress >>>> in the >>>> world will react if in their places. But I don't see a reason to not >>>> continue to state the need to ICANN to become really international. >>> >>> This is a *very* complicated issue. >>> >>> First off, there is the simple political recognition that no politician >>> in the US is going to risk the political kiss-of-death of being labeled >>> by an opponent as "the man/woman who lost the internet." >>> >>> And since ICANN can demonstrate no independent claim of control or (and >>> I am nervous even about uttering the word) "ownership" over DNS and >>> TLDs >>> and address spaces, ICANN without the consent of the US' NTIA would be >>> an ICANN without a clear source of authority to regulate those things. >>> >>> There is also the legal mess that would occur were ICANN to try to >>> move. >>> Just the issue of moving the money (and the contractual rights to >>> receive that money) that ICANN receives and spends would raise >>> questions >>> about the rights of creditors (one of the the largest of which is Jones >>> Day, the law firm that formed ICANN and that still represents ICANN >>> which would find itself in a conflict-of-interest situation on these >>> matters.) >>> >>> Then there is the problem in that ICANN rules via a pyramid of >>> contracts >>> (and in the case of .com, settlements of lawsuits.) Contracts (and >>> settlements) do not exist in a vacuum - they are very sensitive to the >>> jurisdictional context in which they are interpreted. A while back I >>> saw a draft of an ICANN plan to splatter itself into multiple legal >>> entities in multiple countries, often under very specialized and arcane >>> national laws. That would mean that a registrar/TLD in one place would >>> have a contract with ICANN-clone in country A that would be interpreted >>> under the laws of country A and another registrar would have a contract >>> with an ICANN-clone in country B that would be interpreted under the >>> laws of country B. That would mean not only uncertainty for registrants >>> but would create a kind of forum shopping for those who want TLDs. It >>> would be a legal Gordian knot without a convenient Alexander. >>> >>> Then there is the fact that the job done by ICANN has virtually nothing >>> to do with internet stability. ICANN is a medieval trade guild in >>> modern garb that, like its ancient counterpart, is mainly a body of >>> trade (and trademark) protection - what we call today "a combination in >>> restraint of trade." The point here is that do we really want to >>> undertake the vast effort of creating a new kind of international >>> entity >>> when the particular job being done is not one that really deserves >>> doing >>> in the first place and which tends to run contrary to not only our >>> modern notions of a fair and open marketplace but also which has >>> operated on principles of a rather oligarchical and anti-democratic >>> nature? >>> >>> I happen to live in ICANN's legal home - California. (In the US, >>> corporations are creatures of State law, not of Federal law. ICANN >>> merely has a Federal tax exemption.) Since California is my home I tend >>> to look on the legal foundation for ICANN as being something that is >>> not >>> all that bad. I can only intellectually feel the force of the idea of >>> ICANN as an instrument of United States hegemony. >>> >>> I can say that California does have some rather decent and well minded >>> laws about how public benefit corporations are supposed to operate. >>> (Mind you, I had to go to court to get ICANN to abide by some of the >>> most clearly articulated of those laws.) I would suspect that if we >>> search the world for good homes for bodies of internet governance that >>> California would be, except for the fact that it is part of the US, as >>> good as most of the better places. >>> >>> What I'm saying is that in the reaction to have ICANN fly away from the >>> US it is well worth considering where it must land, as land it must. >>> >>> Personally I don't believe that the internet would suffer one lost >>> packet or one misconducted TCP connection if ICANN were simply to >>> vanish >>> into a poof of money-scented smoke. The main loss would be a very >>> pliant tool for trademark protection attorneys. >>> >>> But we do need a body (or bodies) to do the jobs that ICANN was >>> supposed >>> to have done but which it has not done - to assure that the name >>> resolution system of the internet is stable, which means in particular >>> that DNS name query packets are quickly, efficiently, and accurately >>> translated into DNS name response packets without prejudice against any >>> query source or query subject. >>> >>> I consider the creation of a body to to those jobs, or better yet, >>> several bodies, each to do one precisely defined job, is more important >>> than the question of the legal home of each of those bodies. >>> >>> I submit that if we start to examine the jobs that we really want done >>> we will find that many of them (but not all) are largely clerical and >>> non-discretionary tasks that would not raise concern about where they >>> are done. >>> >>> I suggest that we will find our tasks easier and more likely to succeed >>> if we come up with the job descriptions for the jobs that we want to >>> have performed before we undertake to move ICANN. >>> >>> --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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 07:40:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fw: ICANN News Alert -- Three Registrars Lose Accreditation Message-ID: <42110.19206.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I send this via this strange self sent and forwarding as I participate as a troll on a few different lists. And respect the desire, although outdated, against cross posting. The downtrodden GA list is so beat upon by ICANN that to even be seen there is the kiss of death for activity in governance. Such greats as Mueller, Flemming, Baptista, Thrush, Gaetano, Karl, Crispin and Crocker are archived to prove they got their Governance start there. --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Hugh Dierker wrote: From: Hugh Dierker Subject: Fw: ICANN News Alert -- Three Registrars Lose Accreditation To: "GA" Cc: "Eric Dierker" Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 11:25 AM I do not think this is enough.  It is not a matter of the 3.  It is a matter of "Complex Systems".  In a natural business cycling sense we should see more failure. A system that is truly open and free should see more risk and more loss. On the one hand this minimal closure rate indicates not enough trying. Therefore not enough incentive to risk the cost of participation. OTOH it indicates a lack of competitiveness involving winners and losers.   How many tries for the lightbulb?  What was each try?  We cannot possibly be trying hard enough to find the best business models if we are not in the process of eliminating those that do not work.   I was very heartened to read of the Press Release regarding the Twin Cities Sero grand predictions for a fairly new concept .Artist which will at least strive to be a community networking inter and intra community networking concept.  I was likewise very pleased to see some momentum going for .gay. I was quite bummed out to see both of them fall prey to fairly typical "Press Release" for an "offereing" stylized announcements and suggesting rather typical business models.  They seem to stand out in concept but are rather dull in inventiveness for people to invest of themselves into the origin of the species.   When I am so blessed to be able to teach marketing and business in rather socialist -Mexico and rather communist-Vietnam the first lessons that I pound into the skulls of mush is the Right to Fail. ICANN is not promoting this concept. They somehow tie in the concept of "failure of the system" which is quite a bogeyman in engineering, to the business model where the right to fail is paramount to invention, innovation, synergy and evolution of our kind.   Everyday I scan my Spam for the failures. I read a few and then I pause and try to think what I could learn from each one -- what not to do - what fire not to stick my hand in - and then I give thanks for those who try.   (dictated not read ;-} Eric Hugh Dierker --- On Mon, 8/10/09, ICANN News Alert wrote: From: ICANN News Alert Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Three Registrars Lose Accreditation To: hdierker2204 at yahoo.com Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 3:32 PM ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-10aug09-en.htm ________________________________ Three Registrars Lose Accreditation 10 August 2009 Three registrars have lost their accreditation. South America Domains Ltd doing business as namefrog.com, Simply Named Inc (SimplyNamed.com) and Tahoe Domains Inc have not had their Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) renewed upon expiration for failure to comply with the requirements of the RAA. Letters have been sent to each registrar outlining the decision and reason behind the decision. Related links Letter to South American Domains http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-friedman-30jul09-en.pdf [PDF, 229K] Letter to Simply Named http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-pearcy-30jul09-en.pdf [PDF, 205K] Letter to Tahoe Domains http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-ball-30jul09-en.pdf [PDF, 229K] ________________________________ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine http://www.icann.org/magazine/ This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com Manage your subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9830028&l=6333&s=MCQD&m=253868&c=165637 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 08:06:06 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Miltons' Matrix is Wrong Message-ID: <984639.92856.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I thank Milton for his contributions and respect is intellect.  I read his posts and marketed "blogging". I found his logic quite persuasive. But then I saw the problem. The problem with the whole JPA mix. The problem is the exact opposite of the engineering conundrum of not settling on common language. The problem is the (way overused) inability to think outside the goldfish bowl. The problem is -- "being invested" in the status quo.   The ICANN model is not. It is by know means what Miltons' students would come up with if assigned the task of building a model for Internet Governance.  It is like a bad patchwork of self interest and preservation.  To even use the same language to discuss ICANN and the way it should be is counterproductive and misleading.   We should be using words that sound like our respective countries' declaration of independence and bills of rights. We should be using terms that describe interconnectivity and progress and representation.  We should be using concepts like dispute resolution and bodies of standards and norms and goals and aspirations not restrictions on use and innovation.   Governance must be for the governed not for those who would govern. Monies and energies and jurisdictions and corporate structures should be implemented  and spent for the purpose of openness and transparency not preservation of the structures.  If we must tear down to build then so be it. But we cannot just do a geographic and move existing errors or add on to an existing weak foundation. We must break out of Miltons' box and approach the future as though we were building a whole new nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 08:28:31 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Complex Systems was-Re: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <237500.11788.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yahuda,   Complex systems and the study and applications of studied rationales to existing models is very complicated ;>}. My daughters' studies at Berkeley are coined "Society and the Environment" --- impossible to even wrap your mind around the internetworking and spiderweb like complexities of melding the two concepts into a working synergism that benefits both. (that is if you leave society as human and environment as the natural -- go further and you damn near have to rectify Genesis with the ultimate Bang).   On sunday I visited Alcala the first Mission of the Internet of Names and Addresses of Alta California. I stood on "The Playa Trail" the claimed 1st commercial trail/internet system in the US. I hiked later the Rose Canyon Fault - a cornerstone of the geographic fault lines and internet of California de Tierra. This fault line is covered by the Interconnected drainage system of the Tecolote, Bear and Rose canyon basin area. On top lies the Internet of the Santa Fe Railroad and within the epitierra lies the runoff sewage system of the greater San Diego area. Of course on all sides is the Internet of the massive So. Cal. interconnected freeway system.   We have been involved in interconnectivity internets since long before the Phoenicians.  Why are we so shocked at the complexity?  Why do we act like we have been goosed by a brand new idea?  Pure folly and purely erected by existing enterprises to slow it down because they cannot keep up. --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing ACLU (Dateline 1953) To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:31 PM karl scribe > As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues of internet governance is the problem of separating those things that are mandated by technical necessity from those thing that are merely one possible way that a technology can be used but that has ossified into being perceived as the only way. - And this statement gives rise to: Why diversity is important. (The possibility of something being one way or another way) That question falls into the field of 'Complexity Science' What Makes a System Complex? What defines a system as complex, as opposed to being merely “complicated”? The answer lies in the presence of four factors: * A population of diverse agents, all of which are * Connected, with behaviors and actions that are * Interdependent, and that exhibit * Adaptation. Understanding complex systems is important for several reasons: * They’re often unpredictable. * They sometimes produce events with global ramifications. * They’re remarkably robust and can withstand substantial trauma and variation. The internet is in a state of 'Emergance'(as defined in Complexity Science), the spontaneous creation of order and functionality from the bottom up. Icann has not grasped that concept, nor do I belive it to grasped that concept. Jon Postel's premis has been exploited by commercial economics, because of the 'Mentality' of those in Icann. Its not just the Greed, the mentally-invisioned amount$ which can be Capitolized via channels provided by Icann, it is also the created perception of Power. My appologies Milton, but maybe if your publisher would have named your book diffrently than 'Ruling the Root', 'the mentality' of Internet success would be different. (I'm not blaming, I'm just saying). So if your intrested in learning about Complexity Science, here a link to a download (which I would not normally provide), but I think it would help some of you to open your eyes. http://www.tactools.org/ttc-video-undestanding-complexity.html -- Ginger and Ian want to get some work done, my suggestions were only to help them accomplish that objective. Let's see what they have to say. If you don't come to the Mountain, the Mountains is gonna come to you. Kind regards____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 11 10:58:04 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <4A81482E.60105@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <454454.39009.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Carlos,   This is so clearly stating that you will not talk to some one who is not worthy of your interest. This is so clearly eltism. What must a man do to be worthy of a voice??  Who would you deem worthy of a voice in GOVERNANCE?   Does this sound familiar?;  Government, by the people, for the people of the people.  But who appointed you?  No one. You are so out of touch with the people you would govern that you are not worthy.  I have never seen a post from you or your ilk seeking a representative form of Governance. You always seek money and power from the top down to the exclusion of the user, that you promote excluding from this United Nations sponsored list. --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Carlos Afonso wrote: But we should really think of ways to use Internet tools so we can express our views knowing, at a minimum, whom we are debating with. frt rgds So you can judge based upon the region, color of their skin, race or class, rather than integrity of their words?  "I have a dream!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 11 12:48:12 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:48:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Miltons' Matrix is Wrong In-Reply-To: <984639.92856.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <984639.92856.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050908110948w7ad84ad7o852764e1d5cf2142@mail.gmail.com> Dear Eric (and greetings group): We have not corresponded before but I hope you will welcome same. I invite you to consider joining the *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. if you have interest because your posts seem a good match. Sorry not to go into detail here, very interesting reading. Best wishes, LDMF., On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I thank Milton for his contributions and respect is intellect. I read his > posts and marketed "blogging". I found his logic quite persuasive. But then > I saw the problem. The problem with the whole JPA mix. The problem is the > exact opposite of the engineering conundrum of not settling on common > language. The problem is the (way overused) inability to think outside the > goldfish bowl. The problem is -- "being invested" in the status quo. > > The ICANN model is not. It is by know means what Miltons' students would > come up with if assigned the task of building a model for Internet > Governance. It is like a bad patchwork of self interest and preservation. > To even use the same language to discuss ICANN and the way it should be is > counterproductive and misleading. > > We should be using words that sound like our respective countries' > declaration of independence and bills of rights. We should be using terms > that describe interconnectivity and progress and representation. We should > be using concepts like dispute resolution and bodies of standards and norms > and goals and aspirations not restrictions on use and innovation. > > Governance must be for the governed not for those who would govern. Monies > and energies and jurisdictions and corporate structures should be > implemented and spent for the purpose of openness and transparency not > preservation of the structures. If we must tear down to build then so be > it. But we cannot just do a geographic and move existing errors or add on to > an existing weak foundation. We must break out of Miltons' box and approach > the future as though we were building a whole new > nation.____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- LDMF. 914 769 3652 Dr.Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, NGO Representative to United Nations ECOSOC (CCC/UN and World Education Fellowship). Founder/Director "Respectful Interfaces* Programme - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.) Founder with Carol Jay Levy, Persons With Pain International accredited to the U.N. (DESA Enable) Bureau on The 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' (CRPD). Member, e-lists and in person, U.N. Committees on thematic and practical subjects inc. age, gender, health, disability, values, education, and ICT. Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Aug 11 17:18:30 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007001ca1ac9$52f88d90$f8e9a8b0$@com.br> Totally agree with Carlton and sharing the experience is a favor we do to others without the same opportunity to know the sides of the internet reality. Best to all Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.Brazil Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 6:47 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Charity Gamboa Cc: Eric Dierker; Roxana Goldstein; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & Dear Charity: I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education initiatives in the Caribbean. The Internet is an absolutely critical resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be shared. For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our perspectives. Kind regards, Carlton On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: Fouad, Eric and Roxana, Just wanted to share my thoughts here. Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn and share experiences. Regards, Charity On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Roxana and Fouad, My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. It was during the time when the last international governance elections were held in ICANN. We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common interaction. You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and McTim. * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM Hi Eric, Fouad and all, I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. The scenario is different in underdev countries. I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low participation of underdev people. Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to make something different than what has been done before. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > Hi Eric, True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a development agenda with respect to IG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric Dierker > wrote: > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my work > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. What > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their perspective > on the net. > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on the > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of the > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > Development Agenda from Civil Society > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > Dear Friends, > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > the developed world perspective. > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 02:23:24 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:23:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls In-Reply-To: <13350240.1250014949331.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <13350240.1250014949331.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jeffrey Elitist? I am beginning to wonder about your understanding of English. I have no idea as to how you got to elitist. Then again, your one-sentence reply below contains 5 language errors. Then again, perhaps it is also elitist to point that out. Do forgive me, English is only my third language. And yes, you do remember me - like other serious people on this list (and other lists), I contributed to exposing you and the fake organisations of which you are always the dream cloud president/ chairman/ or some or other pretentious title you accord yourself in representing the millions of members/ followers that populate your twisted imagination. As for being hateful, boy, how is that for the pot calling the kettle black! Everybody has resorted to the elitist-sensible practice of filtering you! A damn shame too, for they are losing so much! Rui 2009/8/11 Jeffrey A. Williams > Rui and all, > > > > How unplesent of you... how elitist. And what a shame. but than again > I remember you form some time > > back, and your still the hateful person you were than. Well I guess some > things never change... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia > Sent: Aug 11, 2009 2:11 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Unsubscribing and controlling the trolls > > Milton > > That's the way to go! Epecially when the Jeffreys of this world use the > 'right to comment/ reply' to reply to every single posting and every comment > on the list! > > Rui > > 2009/8/8 Milton L Mueller > >> Ginger is being very polite and procedural, which is appropriate because >> she is a co-coordinator of the list. >> >> >> >> I do not have to be either polite or procedural. I have just configured my >> email client to block Erik Dierker. Jeff Williams has been on my block list >> for years. Joe Baptista and Karl Peters are just one more childish or >> irrelevant comment away from making my list. I encourage others who are fed >> up with their posts to do the same. It really works, and it is easy to do. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> Dear IGC members: >> >> We are having numerous complaints about postings by trolls on the list. >> However, until we have fulfilled the steps stipulated in the ICG charter for >> each case, we cannot take action against them. In the meantime we suggest >> that you set your Spam or other email filters to remove unwanted messages >> before they reach your inbox. >> >> A close look at recent IGC archives show an increasing number of messages >> by trolls. It also shows an increase in "unsubscribes". All of us must take >> individual action to avoid destruction of the list. The co-coordinators >> cannot do it with administrative action alone, because we must protect the >> right to legitimate discussion and dissension through proper procedure. >> >> Experienced trolls can manipulate real issues to distract and overwhelm a >> list. Rather than unsubscribing, we suggest you not participate in >> discussions with unproductive members and use filters to control the >> messages you receive. >> >> We may need to open a discussion on changes to the charter, or a change to >> a moderated list. Please consider these possibilities and opine if you think >> appropriate. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 >> >> > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 02:48:38 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:48:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance & In-Reply-To: <007001ca1ac9$52f88d90$f8e9a8b0$@com.br> References: <782093.40952.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <61a136f40908071447v6f626b58n3bbf40fbb146b5c8@mail.gmail.com> <007001ca1ac9$52f88d90$f8e9a8b0$@com.br> Message-ID: Dear Vanda I sincerely hope that I misunderstood what you said with "sharing the experience is a favo[u]r we do to others". We are all here to share and help and create a better environment for all. I fail to see who is doing whom a favour - unless you were talking in your former capacity as a senior on the ICANN board. Perhaps you might want to make use of the opportunity to ensure that what you said is what you meant. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/11 Vanda Scartezini > Totally agree with Carlton and sharing the experience is a favor we do to > others without the same opportunity to know the sides of the internet > reality. > > Best to all > > > > *Vanda Scartezini* > > *POLO Consultores Associados* > > *& IT Trend* > > *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* > > *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.Brazil* > > *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* > > *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** > > > > *From:* carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels > *Sent:* Friday, August 07, 2009 6:47 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Charity Gamboa > *Cc:* Eric Dierker; Roxana Goldstein; Fouad Bajwa > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > & > > > > Dear Charity: > I live and teach in Jamaica and am engaged in distance and online education > initiatives in the Caribbean. The Internet is an absolutely critical > resource for all that I do. Your observations are spot on and deserve to be > shared. For it is from the sharing that hopefully, we can help others of > our brethren to understand our reality and foster a new appreciation of our > perspectives. > > Kind regards, > Carlton > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Charity Gamboa > wrote: > > Fouad, Eric and Roxana, > > Just wanted to share my thoughts here. > > Geographic locations do affect such diverse factors as availability of > resources and cultural attitudes - all of which in return will shape one's > perspective on the Net. Implying/claiming that geographic location has no > bearing on their perspective on the Net is fallacious at best. To reject the > bearing of geographic location on perspective is a black swan argument. > > Eric, I come from a developing nation and married to someone from a > developed nation. I worked with under privileged people in the Philippines > and advocated on literacy programs to alleviate poverty. I come to the US > and I volunteered to work with Hispanics on an adult literacy program. My > perspective is different when I used to grumble about having to teach 15 > women with one computer in the Philippines and when I had to teach literacy > to adults in the US who have enough resources (books, Internet) provided by > the county and yet do not make use of such resources. So my perspective on > the Net really differs after working in a developing nation and in a > developed nation. Even at this case, I still do want to learn from diverse > experiences. So I understand where Fouad is coming from - no labeling or > stereotyping (of who are the elitist and all) but simply wanting to learn > and share experiences. > > Regards, > Charity > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Eric Dierker > wrote: > > Roxana and Fouad, > > > > My purpose in pointing out the complexities of a "developing class > geographic" was to highlight similarities to be governed rather than > differences. In 2001 I coined the term "dotcommoner" whilst objecting to > elitist trying to run folks like you out of the ICANN GA. > > It was during the time when the last international governance elections > were held in ICANN. > > We must remain diligence in any governance model to be inclusive -- not > with bells and whistles and stipends and perquisites but in common > interaction. > > > > You are too right about snobbery Roxanna. Note the current gaggle of > elitist intellectuals proclaiming "unsubscribe"* on this open list. Note > they were lead by a Ivy league type heavily marketed lawyer. > > > > Please do not be misled or discouraged by these "developed" egocentrics. > Many of us really do care about shoeshine boys in Saigon and Iranian pro > democracy advocates and open sourcing in the Honduras and free access to > Internet Medical knowledge in Botswana. > > Most of us do not care about the funding models and titles bestowed and > acknowledgments of great achievement. Most are good solid folks that are > very smart and a little eccentric like Avri and Joe and Ian and Wolgang and > McTim. > > > > > > * Everyone knows you do not unsubscribe by writing a post. It is a > grandstanding "look at me" "I am better than you" post to do it publicly. > Directly in the face of less popularly thought of folks. Almost always by > people who do not want any humanism brought into the mix of their vision for > us idiots. Labeling something a Troll, you do not understand is typical. > > --- On *Fri, 8/7/09, Roxana Goldstein * wrote: > > > From: Roxana Goldstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" > Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 12:56 PM > > Hi Eric, Fouad and all, > > I´ve been participating at this list for a long time -I think almost from > the start up-, as a lurker mostly, just because I feel that we, the > underdeveloped -specially those from underdeveloped countries :)-, are > "under representated" here, I mean that most of the topics and the > contributions reflect the worries of the dev people, everybody speak in > english, everybody have good access to internet, perhaphs time to dedicate > to this, good salaries and support to dedicate their effors to this issues. > The scenario is different in underdev countries. > > I think that Eric, with his best intentions I supose, has put on the table > a main concern about IG4D: this list, as many other spaces for interaction > and debate, must be open for all an preserved as equal opportunites > instances. But what Eric says shows a kind of appropriation of this spaces, > perhaps as a result -in an unitentional vicious cycle- of the low > participation of underdev people. > > Honestly, I felt really happy and ilusioned when I saw Fouad email, and I > was one of the enthusiastic "early adopter" of Fouad's initiative of IG4D, > even when I think that this issues must be debated not only in closed > contexts, but in open ones, the most diverse should be the best, in order to > make something different than what has been done before. > > Best regards, > Roxana > > 2009/8/7 Fouad Bajwa > > > > Hi Eric, > > True but the objective is to learn from you and everyone on this list. > If we don't discuss and we don't share, how will we learn and how will > we relate and compare and search for possible answers? Lets continue > to help out each other. By the way, I have not stereotyped or pin > pointed any region in particular, I have request to share your > comments in the light of identifying, analysing and suggesting a > development agenda with respect to IG. > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Eric > Dierker> > wrote: > > Not a good starting point here. I am from a developed nation. All my > work > > has been for developing nations. My wife is from a developing nation. > What > > makes you think that ones geographic location determines their > perspective > > on the net. > > > > The US is developed -- Yet I worked with some in Northeastern Arizona on > the > > Navajo Indian reservation that have exactly the same issues as those of > the > > lower Mekong or Puebla Mexico. Your distinctions need to be retooled. > > > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Fouad Bajwa > > wrote: > > > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > > > Subject: [governance] Requesting Comments for an Internet Governance > > Development Agenda from Civil Society > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 3:51 PM > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > As you know that I have been participating physically in IGF > > mainstream activities only recently and I wanted to understand and > > build up consensus on a Development Agenda with regards to Internet > > Governance through various interventions. My understanding of the > > topic may vary due to the fact that I belong to the developing world > > and we see the subject of a developing agenda a bit differently from > > the developed world perspective. > > > > I have occasionally referred to the possibility of such a development > > agenda as "Internet Governance for Development" or "IG4D". I took this > > perception to the Open Consultations in Geneva earlier this year in > > May. I would like to request all of you to share your comments and > > perspectives on your perception of a development agenda with regards > > to Internet Governance. In the past, I have learnt a great deal from > > IT For Change and APC's work and would like to learn more from the > > grass roots and members of the IGC. > > > > I await your comments. I will produce something productive for sharing > > at the IGF consultations and meetings respectively. > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 09:26:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:56:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Reminder of Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Message-ID: <4A82C307.3050509@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 10:07:25 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:37:25 -0430 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Message-ID: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Aug 12 10:16:34 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:16:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Hi, It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list and not 'members'. I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner if wished). If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open archives. a. On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to > later be voted upon and approved by the list? > > Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related > topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance > list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members > would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. > > Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if > it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be > one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require > approval, vote or consensus. > > After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to > the charter. > > Is this practical, appropriate, legal? > > Any thoughts? > > I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we > should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not > think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would > be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I > thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) > > gp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Aug 12 11:05:24 2009 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:05:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <001401ca1b5e$61ce5b70$256b1250$@com> I agree with Avri's suggestion - working group lists can take a lot of the back and forth traffic off the main list and allow for more focused discussion on getting something done. But that won't do anything about troll activity, though... and I'd be against giving up the list's openness and transparency and democracy just to get rid of some people that others find annoying - our main principles need to be upheld, despite any troll issues. Jacqueline A. Morris jam at jacquelinemorris.com http://www.jacquelinemorris.com http://www.google.com/profiles/jacqueline.morris. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:17 AM To: Governance/IGC List Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Hi, It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list and not 'members'. I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner if wished). If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open archives. a. On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to > later be voted upon and approved by the list? > > Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related > topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance > list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members > would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. > > Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if > it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be > one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require > approval, vote or consensus. > > After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to > the charter. > > Is this practical, appropriate, legal? > > Any thoughts? > > I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we > should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not > think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would > be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I > thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) > > gp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Wed Aug 12 11:11:47 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:11:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40908120811n6fa7edf8o520536e0e9fd8115@mail.gmail.com> I support Avri's idea. Quite apart from the transparency objective I know we all can support, I am troubled that expressing a contrary opinion, even if it is less than collegial or even polite, is seen as cause to censor. Maybe it's because I am now steeped in the somewhat brutal politics of academia.........but a bruised ego should be acceptable collateral damage in any full and frank discussion. Carlton Samuels On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially > given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list > and not 'members'. > > I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency > (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and > because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one > can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time > to vote on something (or sooner if wished). > > If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side > lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on > x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open > archives. > > a. > > > On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to later >> be voted upon and approved by the list? >> >> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related topics". >> This would be an open list. We would change the governance list from an open >> list to a moderated membership, where new members would have to be approved >> by the coordinators upon signing up. >> >> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it is >> not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of the >> duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or >> consensus. >> >> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >> charter. >> >> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should take >> pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is a proper >> procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do it, and then >> resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be able to make it >> stick :o) >> >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 11:26:12 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:56:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Explanation and apology In-Reply-To: <001401ca1b5e$61ce5b70$256b1250$@com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <001401ca1b5e$61ce5b70$256b1250$@com> Message-ID: <4A82DF14.6060004@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 12 11:51:12 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:21:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> Hi All The IGC charter gives IGC many clear organizational responsibilities, that require both some amount of discipline and collective decision making capacity, which we all realize often does not exist at present. It is our responsibility to ensure that we evolve in the direction whereby we can best fulfill our mandate. Unfortunately, we often seem to be going in the opposite direction, and I am very concerned about it, like many others who have repeatedly expressed similar concerns. We already have a membership group and a non-member list subscribers group. We can make use of this distinction wherever needed to ensure we are able to properly do things that we are mandated to do. I understand that the IGC mandate can be seen to have two aspects (1) to be an open space for exchange of information and discussion on IG issues, chiefly global IG issues (2) to undertake public interest advocacy in global IG spaces The two aspects of IGC's mandate have different organizational requirements. (1) above requires it to be an open space, least encumbered by any rules, exclusions etc except the very basic ones which are required to be enforced in any public place to allow a reasonable discussion. The aspect (2) of the mandate however clearly requires more specific organizational and outcome-achieving capacities. No one is advocating IGC becoming a typical formal organization, and we indeed have achieved very considerable advocacy outcomes in the past. In this sense IGC indeed is a very unique organization or group. And we need to keep evolving on the same unique path. I think it may be in order to have a members only e-list, something like IGC-mmbers at lists.cpsr.org, plus another general IGC discussion list which can continue to be the same list as the present one. All discussions should take place on the general IGC list. Attempts at developing consensus should also first be attempted on the general list - in any case the overall discussion towards seeking consensus should take place on the general list. However, as and if required, issues requiring specific decisions should move to the members list. Here, if needed, simple voting can be used to decide issues. Issues that may need decisions include anything that can be causing serious disruptive effect on the IGC (and you know what I are taking about here). In fact if a decision is put to the members list - whether it is a substantive one, like when consensus on an advocacy issue is becoming difficult, or that related to IGC maintenance and discipline - IGC members are expected to feel more responsible to so something about it. In the present situation where IGC space often looks so alien and unowned by anyone, it becomes easy for members to abdicate responsibility. What I propose and seek here has significant resonance with the acute 'political' crisis we face globally as well locally across the world today - societies and communities are losing means and, consequently, motivation for collective decision making in areas where such decisions are crucial to our survival. In IGC too we face such an existential moment. And unlike the global crisis it is much easier for us involved in this group to do our bit and make a change. We may also be, in the process, taking a small step towards addressing the stated global crisis. parminder Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. > Especially given the number of well respected people who are > participants on the list and not 'members'. > > I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from > transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited > from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of > outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and > then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner > if wished). > > If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller > side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a > statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, > but with open archives. > > a. > > On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >> >> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >> >> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one >> of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, >> vote or consensus. >> >> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >> charter. >> >> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that >> is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing >> to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG >> would be able to make it stick :o) >> >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 12 12:42:05 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:12:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> Message-ID: <4A82F0DD.5010808@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. > Especially given the number of well respected people who are > participants on the list and not 'members'. Avri As per what I suggest no fundamental change takes place. The well respected people you speak of can continue to be participants, and they have as much right in all discussions as anyone else. It is their choice if they want to also be members to take part in IGC decisions, those of which just must be taken. > > I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from > transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited > from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of > outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and > then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner > if wished). Nothing is done to outreach either. The list remains as open for anyone to subscribe. Membership also remains open if one wants to be a member and subscribes to the charter, which is the condition for membership. An excessive and unthinking accent on formal openness/ participation can come at the expense of real or substantive openness/ participation, and the IGC is a good instance of it. An IGC made ineffective because we dont take the minimum necessary decisions/ measures drives people away, and also otherwise greatly reduces effectiveness of IGC as a conduit of participation of voices that are otherwise poorly represented in global IG forums. > > If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller > side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a > statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, > but with open archives. Should be in any case useful. But there are not enough active IGC members willing to get into such huddles. Finally, everything depends on the quality of discussions on the IGC general list, and the substantive impact and, consequent, recognition/ status IGC can earn. I think we can all agree that the current set of events that this thread has developed in response to does not promise to take us in that direction. Therefore small topical lists does nothing to address the issue we are facing, though I am greatly for them. Parminder > > a. > > On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >> >> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >> >> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one >> of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, >> vote or consensus. >> >> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >> charter. >> >> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that >> is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing >> to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG >> would be able to make it stick :o) >> >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 12 14:34:33 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list -- full support In-Reply-To: <61a136f40908120811n6fa7edf8o520536e0e9fd8115@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <440924.8051.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I hope no one views these positions as "against anyone".  They are clearly in support of the Idea, and all Ideas need support. They are not in support of a personality they are in support of the notion of finding solutions.    Regardless of my position on segregation and divisions and borders and boundaries I am totally in support of open dialogs to make all feel a "part of" our grand designs.  Personally I really like people who try to fix things instead of walking away or throwing away.   Also I like Gingers' idea of giving some alternatives a shot.  See if they work. We can at least learn if they turn into mistakes.   And lastly I think it is important to provide for safe lists for the socially handicapped to participate in.  It is not fair for those of us who can withstand "slings and arrows" to expect all with worthy intellects to be so capable.  Our folks who cannot handle the constant exposure to the infectious demands of the users should be allowed some prophylactic antibiotics to prevent serious social injury. --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Carlton Samuels wrote: From: Carlton Samuels Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:11 PM I support Avri's idea. Quite apart from the transparency objective I know we all can support, I am troubled that expressing a contrary opinion, even if it is less than collegial or even polite, is seen as cause to censor. Maybe it's because I am now steeped in the somewhat brutal politics of academia.........but a bruised ego should be acceptable collateral damage in any full and frank discussion. Carlton Samuels On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list.  Especially given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list and not 'members'. I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner if wished). If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open archives. a. On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to later be voted upon and approved by the list? Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or consensus. After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the charter. Is this practical, appropriate, legal? Any thoughts? I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) gp ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 16:16:57 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:16:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list -- full support In-Reply-To: <9271778.1250106710004.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9271778.1250106710004.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <45ed74050908121316n294934eco9244383a0b9ac3f5@mail.gmail.com> Thank you for the inclusion. There is much that is interesting and relevant in the current conversations, and something for everyone, as it seems there should be by the very nature of the 'universe of discourse.' Best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Eric and all, > > > > I agree with Eric and especially Carltons remarks below. Unfortunately I > am censored on the governance > > list for reasons that I do not know, nor can any rational person support. > > > > Selective censorship benifits no one and damages to one degree or another > all. Openess and transparency > > benifits everyone, and anyone. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dierker > Sent: Aug 12, 2009 1:34 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Carlton Samuels , Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list -- full support > > I hope no one views these positions as "against anyone". They are > clearly in support of the Idea, and all Ideas need support. They are not in > support of a personality they are in support of the notion of finding > solutions. > > Regardless of my position on segregation and divisions and borders and > boundaries I am totally in support of open dialogs to make all feel a "part > of" our grand designs. Personally I really like people who try to fix > things instead of walking away or throwing away. > > Also I like Gingers' idea of giving some alternatives a shot. See if they > work. We can at least learn if they turn into mistakes. > > And lastly I think it is important to provide for safe lists for the > socially handicapped to participate in. It is not fair for those of us who > can withstand "slings and arrows" to expect all with worthy intellects to be > so capable. Our folks who cannot handle the constant exposure to the > infectious demands of the users should be allowed some prophylactic > antibiotics to prevent serious social injury. > > --- On *Wed, 8/12/09, Carlton Samuels *wrote: > > > From: Carlton Samuels > Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:11 PM > > I support Avri's idea. > > Quite apart from the transparency objective I know we all can support, I am > troubled that expressing a contrary opinion, even if it is less than > collegial or even polite, is seen as cause to censor. > > Maybe it's because I am now steeped in the somewhat brutal politics of > academia.........but a bruised ego should be acceptable collateral damage in > any full and frank discussion. > > Carlton Samuels > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. Especially >> given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list >> and not 'members'. >> >> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency >> (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and >> because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one >> can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time >> to vote on something (or sooner if wished). >> >> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side >> lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on >> x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open >> archives. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >>> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >>> >>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >>> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance list >>> from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members would have to >>> be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >>> >>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it is >>> not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of the >>> duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or >>> consensus. >>> >>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >>> charter. >>> >>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >>> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is a >>> proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do it, and >>> then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be able to make >>> it stick :o) >>> >>> gp >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >> > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Regards, > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- Dr.Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, NGO Representative to United Nations ECOSOC (CCC/UN and World Education Fellowship). Founder/Director "Respectful Interfaces* Programme - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.) Founder with Carol Jay Levy, Persons With Pain International accredited to the U.N. (DESA Enable) Bureau on The 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' (CRPD). Member, e-lists and in person, U.N. Committees on thematic and practical subjects inc. age, gender, health, disability, values, education, and ICT. Other Affiliations on Request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 12 18:19:59 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:19:59 +1000 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Explanation and apology In-Reply-To: <4A82DF14.6060004@gmail.com> Message-ID: Good to see the range of views being put forward, and some open discussion on this, so Ginger it wasn¹t so bad a mistake to make after all! This list periodically has disruptive influences (who was the person who during WSIS preparations kept posting long diatribes on the inner workings of UNIX?) Others I could name meant well but were just highly unusual to the point where they input could be considered disruptive. We seem to have quite different opinions here on the option of a closed list ­ some strongly for, some strongly against. I have a personal preference for an open list, but I do have a higher tolerance for noise on lists than some. Perhaps if English wasn¹t my first language I would feel different however. But if there is a strong feeling either way I here I am happy to go with the general direction! Ian On 13/08/09 1:26 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hi everyone, > First an explanation and apology. My last email post was meant for Ian Peter > (offlist) as a discussion between co-coordinators, not for the list. > Unfortunately, I am multi-tasking from an excellent IGF preparatory meeting > in Rio, and this error was a result. > > From a viewpoint of transparency, it is not terrible--I would not however, > treat this subject in this manner on the list, as I did permit myself more > latitude in a private email. I have already apologized to Alejandro Pisanty > for making public a private conversation. > > I am glad to see nonetheless that responses have been productive and coherent. > Perhaps we can make positive use of this error to find alternatives to improve > the efficiency of the list. I do emphasize that the objective is not > censorship, but working together to make the list work better, and in > particular, to stop people from unsubscribing due to distracting posts. > > My personal opinion is still that the most obvious solution is the use of > filters and message rules in our email applications to control unwanted > emails. However, the number of sign-offs, and the distraction from substantial > discussion concerns me. Let us please discuss Avri's suggestion and any others > that come up. Please opine. > > Thanks. Best, > Ginger > > Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >> >> I agree with Avri's suggestion - working group lists can take a lot of the >> back and forth traffic off the main list and allow for more focused >> discussion on getting something done. But that won't do anything about >> troll activity, though... and I'd be against giving up the list's openness >> and transparency and democracy just to get rid of some people that others >> find annoying - our main principles need to be upheld, despite any troll >> issues. >> >> Jacqueline A. Morris >> jam at jacquelinemorris.com >> http://www.jacquelinemorris.com >> http://www.google.com/profiles/jacqueline.morris. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:17 AM >> To: Governance/IGC List >> Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list >> >> Hi, >> >> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. >> Especially given the number of well respected people who are >> participants on the list and not 'members'. >> >> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from >> transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited >> from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of >> outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and >> then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner >> if wished). >> >> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller >> side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a >> statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, >> but with open archives. >> >> a. >> >> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >>> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >>> >>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >>> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >>> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >>> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >>> >>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >>> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be >>> one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require >>> approval, vote or consensus. >>> >>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to >>> the charter. >>> >>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we >>> should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not >>> think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would >>> be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I >>> thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o) >>> >>> gp >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 12 23:33:37 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list - Happy Hour Proposal Message-ID: Ginger & Ian, I have one more proposal/suggestion to add; Can we agree that from: After 5pm Fridays (regardless of your geo-local) to 11pm Sundays, the List can be 'Open Topic' (Happy Hour: Fri-Sun), And that Monday thru Friday (normal work week) the List in 'Work Group' session. (no off topic interferance) I have been on other list wherein this is the "Gentleman's Agreement." - If any of you felt that I have been a troll at sometime, please tell me so and I'll excuse myself from this list. I try to make my comments on weekends only, However there are times that I get engaged in the heat of the context, and feel the need to reply, before the inspirations is lost. I must admit, that as I'm getting old, I am loosing some of my motor skills to cancer, but try to stay cohesive and provide what relative support I can. A Friday/Sunday 'Happy Hour' conversation on IG works great for me. - I'm also worried about Young-People feeling free to make 'Proposals", First off, I feel that there are not enough people presently on this list making PROPOSALS, and even less, Young People speaking up with their proposals. This deeply troubles me because; 1. Its their net environment were building, 2. It seem to be prevalent in most of the American youths I've seen, that is, that passive behavior. Hearing their "Proposals" is important, so we understand, what is important too them. 'Proposals' are what we need, because there are plenty comments. - It's Wednesday evening her in California, I've got grapes to prune tomarrow morning, It's going to be a great year for good Wine. I'll see you all at IG Happy Hour. Thnx (for putting up with me) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 13 14:29:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list - Happy Hour Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <893163.3173.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yehuda,   I really like this idea. Open houses. Coffee Clashes(sp) Break into small groups with buddies.   I only caution that the term "on topic" precludes folks like me from bringing humanism into intellectual debates that effect priorities regarding things like access to health information, education, A2K, and users rights in IP restrictions.   If "stick to what I say" is the topic that we are on  -- Well in that case your criteria and Idea sucks. (he who defines the issue wins the debate)   ps. Watch those Berkely kids kick some IP ass!! --- On Thu, 8/13/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list - Happy Hour Proposal To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 3:33 AM Ginger & Ian, I have one more proposal/suggestion to add; Can we agree that from: After 5pm Fridays (regardless of your geo-local) to 11pm Sundays, the List can be 'Open Topic' (Happy Hour: Fri-Sun), And that Monday thru Friday (normal work week) the List in 'Work Group' session. (no off topic interferance) I have been on other list wherein this is the "Gentleman's Agreement." - If any of you felt that I have been a troll at sometime, please tell me so and I'll excuse myself from this list. I try to make my comments on weekends only, However there are times that I get engaged in the heat of the context, and feel the need to reply, before the inspirations is lost. I must admit, that as I'm getting old, I am loosing some of my motor skills to cancer, but try to stay cohesive and provide what relative support I can. A Friday/Sunday 'Happy Hour' conversation on IG works great for me. - I'm also worried about Young-People feeling free to make 'Proposals", First off, I feel that there are not enough people presently on this list making PROPOSALS, and even less, Young People speaking up with their proposals. This deeply troubles me because; 1. Its their net environment were building, 2. It seem to be prevalent in most of the American youths I've seen, that is, that passive behavior. Hearing their "Proposals" is important, so we understand, what is important too them. 'Proposals' are what we need, because there are plenty comments. - It's Wednesday evening her in California, I've got grapes to prune tomarrow morning, It's going to be a great year for good Wine. I'll see you all at IG Happy Hour. Thnx (for putting up with me) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Aug 13 16:39:56 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to In-Reply-To: 893163.3173.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com Message-ID: Eric, Re.: Eric Schribe.: >I only caution that the term "on topic" precludes folks like me ... I think you may have miss-read the thread. it read 'Open Topic' not "on topic", of which would include Folks like you. To recap the gist of the concept; Monday thru Friday (normal work week) the List is in 'Work Group' Session (no interferance with Work Group matters ). After 5pm Fridays (regardless of your geo-local) to 11pm Sundays, the List is 'Open Topic' (Fri-Sun casual conversation). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 14 04:46:44 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:46:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > The IGC charter gives IGC many clear organizational responsibilities, > that require both some amount of discipline and collective decision > making capacity, which we all realize often does not exist at present. > > It is our responsibility to ensure that we evolve in the direction > whereby we can best fulfill our mandate. Unfortunately, we often seem to > be going in the opposite direction, and I am very concerned about it, > like many others who have repeatedly expressed similar concerns. > > We already have a membership group and a non-member list subscribers > group. We can make use of this distinction wherever needed to ensure we > are able to properly do things that we are mandated to do. > > I understand that the IGC mandate can be seen to have two aspects > > (1) to be an open space for exchange of information and discussion on IG > issues, chiefly global IG issues > > (2) to undertake public interest advocacy in global IG spaces > > The two aspects of IGC's mandate have different organizational > requirements. (1) above requires it to be an open space, least > encumbered by any rules, exclusions etc except the very basic ones which > are required to be enforced in any public place to allow a reasonable > discussion. The aspect (2) of the mandate however clearly requires more > specific organizational and outcome-achieving capacities. No one is > advocating IGC becoming a typical formal organization, and we indeed > have achieved very considerable advocacy outcomes in the past. In this > sense IGC indeed is a very unique organization or group. And we need to > keep evolving on the same unique path. > > I think it may be in order to have a members only e-list, something like > IGC-mmbers at lists.cpsr.org, plus another general IGC discussion list > which can continue to be the same list as the present one. All > discussions should take place on the general IGC list. Attempts at > developing consensus should also first be attempted on the general list > - in any case the overall discussion towards seeking consensus should > take place on the general list. > > However, as and if required, issues requiring specific decisions should > move to the members list. Here, if needed, simple voting can be used to > decide issues. Issues that may need decisions include anything that can > be causing serious disruptive effect on the IGC (and you know what I are > taking about here). > > In fact if a decision is put to the members list - whether it is a > substantive one, like when consensus on an advocacy issue is becoming > difficult, or that related to IGC maintenance and discipline - IGC > members are expected to feel more responsible to so something about it. > In the present situation where IGC space often looks so alien and > unowned by anyone, it becomes easy for members to abdicate responsibility. > > What I propose and seek here has significant resonance with the acute > 'political' crisis we face globally as well locally across the world > today - societies and communities are losing means and, consequently, > motivation for collective decision making in areas where such decisions > are crucial to our survival. In IGC too we face such an existential > moment. And unlike the global crisis it is much easier for us involved > in this group to do our bit and make a change. We may also be, in the > process, taking a small step towards addressing the stated global crisis. > > parminder > > > > Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list. >> Especially given the number of well respected people who are >> participants on the list and not 'members'. >> >> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from >> transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited >> from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of >> outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and >> then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner >> if wished). >> >> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller >> side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a >> statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, >> but with open archives. >> >> a. >> >> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to >>> later be voted upon and approved by the list? >>> >>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related >>> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance >>> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members >>> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up. >>> >>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if >>> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one >>> of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, >>> vote or consensus. >>> >>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the >>> charter. >>> >>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should >>> take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that >>> is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing >>> to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG >>> would be able to make it stick :o) >>> >>> gp >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 05:48:32 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:48:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > Hi all, > > I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with > the issue of decision making capacity. > > > The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates > contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their > membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific > lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant > within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or > moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. > > The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient > to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent > ad hominem attacks. > > After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 > days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is > so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. > > My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few > options for action. > One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion > elsewhere. > Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. > > The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to > take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam" > > The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of > abuse and appropriate means of action against it. > > > There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out > coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present > impasse and help restoring this discussion space. > > jeanette > > > > Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at cis-india.org Fri Aug 14 08:06:45 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:36:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Message-ID: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 14 08:15:08 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Great debates Message-ID: <897839.1048.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> May I please be directed to a place where I could view and review the great focused and topic specific debates generated and concluded here on this list?   Please do not send me to a thread that shows the "paperwork" generated that justifies this list.  I am quite familiar with the submission papers justifying this lists' mandates. What I am looking for is a thread that really dealt with a governance issue in a productive and focused way.   I hope that by looking at that piece of history and then seeing what is happening for the last months I can understand this talk of the list being ruined by participation.  My belief at this moment is that the "mass unsubscribing" is simply a tool being used by those to get what they want.  And that would be to discredit this list because it is not following the quiters desired results. I believe there is some history to Milton and Fausset doing this in ICANN. I hope I am wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Aug 14 08:17:24 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:17:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congress & JPA In-Reply-To: <4A7F9227.4000702@cavebear.com> References: <4A799CB6.1030109@atlarge.icann.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87193C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <01c201ca1622$eb84d290$c28e77b0$@com.br> <4A7A796C.7090006@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A8B81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A7F9227.4000702@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20090814121740.3C47D67887@smtp1.electricembers.net> At 05:21 10/08/2009, Karl Auerbach wrote: >When I read ICANN's plan for splattering itself it was pretty clear >that the intent was to abandon most ties with the US except as >necessary to maintain existing contracts. It was a bizarre system >of corporations in various places with unique laws in which it >seemed that the board of ICANN-US would also occupy seats on each >ICANN-elsewhere. And registrars and registries would make contracts >with the nearby ICANN-somewhere under the laws of that >-somewhere. It would be a mess of divine proportions that would >totally frustrate even the most vacuous Enron-like conception of >accountability. Karl, I must say I dropped interest in ICANN "Internet Governance" details for a while due to more important matters on the "Internet Adminance" (administrative and technical governance) user's side. You seem to refer to a published ICANN's plan? I feel I missed that plan - or are you referring to the many verbose and diffuse documents they publish to make believe they are of any real use in being a real pain? IMHO ICANN only exists due to the JPA. Because, through the JPA the current Internet presentation default it "manages" (I used "presentation" in the architectural presentation layer meaning) is the one supported by the USG (cybersquatting act), NTIA (e-commerce) and ISOC. This is based on the constrained stability (moreover the misunderstood DNSSEC threat is used) of the single authoritative root. China, Russia, India, Europe accept, restraining their digital sovereignty in exchange for this US (not ICANN, nor IETF) protected stability. So, do their users. So do ITU, ISO, UNESCO, etc. Should ICANN quit the USG digital umbrella, it would enter competition. The first Internet area to react would probably be the USA, creating their own ICANN replacement to manage the US Internet presentation based upon the "US" DNS Class including all the currently existing "IN" class TLDs and ignoring the new TLDs sold on the ICANN root. It would be foolishly immature not to do it. The same for others areas and groups of users, starting with the TLDA class. What will ICANN do once in Geneva in front of 65.000 different legitimate DNS and millions of user domain name "ibm.com" stably resolving millions different IP addresses (This is the _real_ Internet we deal with under finishing Microsoft Windows protection)? Have a round the corner lunch with WIPO people? This is why at france at large and the iucg at ietf.org, as several other do, we openly work on the natural architectural reading of the existing Internet (Interplus) to transparently support this natural evolution of the usage of the _existing_ Internet, DNS, browsers, email agents, etc., and to extend the Internet itself to active content (what Web.2.0 tries to implement at the application level). Lawyers and academics missed the very matter at hand: what the real Internet rustic technology permits but does not manage. Security, addresses, multilingualism, routing, privacy, control, etc. are not its only big lacks. The world has agreed a few years ago now how to tackle these problems and their emerging saliencies and further adminance : through enhanced cooperations. ICANN has paid a lot to delay this. It may be very happy in a few months from now to join such cooperations over the DNS, addressing, IP, multilingualisation, etc. "Yet it turns!". jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 14 08:21:43 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <743199.14005.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Generally speaking,   If this input is what you want  --  you provide easy access links to the forum in which the comments are welcome.  I am sure you did not intend this but your post without connections rings a little hollow and without sincerity.   If your response to this is -- "everyone knows" or "find it yourself" well then the intentions are clear and the desired inclusion is obvious.   This agenda setting is much like the list control debates here.  Watch any legislative body for a while and you will see  -  he who controls the agenda gets what he wants. --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Anja Kovacs wrote: From: Anja Kovacs Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 12:06 PM Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence.  Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission)  For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.  I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 14 08:23:22 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This exists here. The very normal 5 post limit.  Note, no one has broken it.  Kind of shows that the complaint is not that legitimate. --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 9:48 AM Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing.   Best regards, Rui   2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette   Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Fri Aug 14 09:41:11 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (katitza at datos-personales.org) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:41:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with Social Media Companies, Privacy Terms Missing In-Reply-To: <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <0c3e19c370dc6385e1f406f0b01b8745.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with Social Media Companies, Privacy Terms Missing In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act Request, the Government Services Administration released several contracts between the federal government and web 2.0 companies, including agreements with Blip.tv, Blist, Google (YouTube), Yahoo (Flickr), and MySpace. EPIC also obtained amendments to agreements with Facebook, Slideshare.net, Vimeo.com, and AddThis.com. The contracts do not address the privacy obligations of social media companies. The GSA letter to EPIC explained that “no specific Web 2.0 guidance currently exists,” but provided EPIC with Training Slides that raise privacy issues. The GSA Agreement with Google actually states that, “to the extent any rules or guidelines exist prohibiting the use of persistent cookies in connection with Provider Content applies to Google, Provider expressly waives those rules or guidelines as they may apply to Google.” Some of the agreements also permit companies to track users of government web sites for advertising purposes. For more information see EPIC Social Network Privacy, EPIC Facebook, and EPIC Cloud Computing. http://epic.org/2009/08/epic-forces-disclosure-of-gove.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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 14 10:49:46 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:49:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647500@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn't mind seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit - say, 5 per day - would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. ________________________________ From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 10:53:46 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:23:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello I agree with Ginger on some of her points ( so disagree with Avri on some of her points ) Did Ginger imply moderated and NOT a closed list with inaccessible archives? I think what Ginger suggested is a moderated list, the list happens to be a moderated list, but set to allow messages to appear instantly as posted. This is a serious list, considered to have originated from the WSIS caucus, and it is necessary to ensure that this remains a serious list. Managing this as a list open for subscription by anyone, without any idea of who is subscribing or any idea of the subscriber's background dilutes the significance of this list. Setting the list to moderated mode does not mean that every message by every member needs to be moderated. The moderators can exercise judgement and allow "override moderation" privileges to most members to allow them to post without moderation. The most recent members or even older members if they happen to fit into the description of a troll or distractor could be set to message moderation. A second list is also a good idea, but this idea could be combined with Avri's suggestion of a working group model for very important, select topic areas or tasks, but we need to be cautious and avoid the temptation to create too many working groups. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > This exists here. The very normal 5 post limit. Note, no one has broken > it. Kind of shows that the complaint is not that legitimate. > > --- On *Fri, 8/14/09, Rui Correia * wrote: > > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 9:48 AM > > > Dear All > > I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - > that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on > every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding > the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. > > Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date > announcements etc by list administrators. > > And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time > limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one > question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x > hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair > that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking > into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. > > And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ > "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change > your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier > position making it clear that that is what you are doing. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > >> Hi all, >> >> I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with >> the issue of decision making capacity. >> >> >> The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates >> contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their >> membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific >> lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant >> within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or >> moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. >> >> The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not >> sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters >> don't prevent ad hominem attacks. >> >> After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 >> days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is >> so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. >> >> My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few >> options for action. >> One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion >> elsewhere. >> Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on >> abuse. >> >> The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to >> take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: >> >> "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those >> relating to: >> *No personal insults >> *No spam" >> >> The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of >> abuse and appropriate means of action against it. >> >> >> There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out >> coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present >> impasse and help restoring this discussion space. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> >> > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Fri Aug 14 12:09:25 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:09:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list References: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <069501ca1cf9$98dac8f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Every so often I'll see someone new to the list respond to a posting by a fellow I blocked several years ago - I can't recall his name for the moment - and fell as if I should advise them as to the negative impact his full participation would have on the list. But one does not want to discourage participation by newbies and I just ignore. People seem to catch on fairly quickly. (Just recalled his name and remember a fellow I respect in the industry asking me if I read his posts. I said no, used to, but now I block him. He said he is amused and gains some benefit from reading his posts. So Jeffrey, keep up the effort, some people enjoy your posts.) But for me he doesn't exist. Milton blocked him. I block him. And others on the list probably block him. He just doesn't exist as a problem for me. (As I might not exist to others on this list.) If anyone is unfamiliar with how to block someone, email me privately. Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. One or two others here are near extinction, as is the "fix" conversation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 14 14:20:53 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:20:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <61a136f40908141120j1b51dcfs289662f4fceef63c@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja: I will offer an opinion that might not be popular but the logic of which I'm yet to see successfully contradicted. It concerns the use of the word "rights" in the context of a service, which is the practical meaning of the word "internet" to ordinary people. I think we can find common cause with respect to [a set of] Internet principles. But when the term "rights" is juxtaposed and invoked, it takes on an aura of justiciability. By extension, a claim for infringement of or disenfranchisement from that right would attract a motion for adjudication; some agent/agency must enforce these rights. The difficulty of course is the need to define the parties and their connected responsibilitites, in context. Typically, the tort law comes into play here. But this is not the sense you get when we talk of Internet rights. A useful corollary is the "right" to education that is so much a part of the development agenda. And, unfortunately, therein lies the rub. Carlton Samuels On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 14 19:14:24 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Something to think about-- Message-ID: <162386.53090.qm@web45201.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> --- هميشه رفتن رسيدن نيست، اما براي رسيدن چاره اي جز رفتن نيست.       در بن بست هميشه راه آسمان باز است، پرواز را بايد آموخت!     هر چه نور بيش تر ، سايه ها عميق تر! "گوته"       اگر مي خواهي پس از مرگ فراموش نشوي يا چيزي بنويس که قابل خواندن باشه يا کاري کن که قابل نوشتن باشه! "بنيامين فرانکلين"           عشق مانند ساعت شني مي ماند قلب را پرمي کند، مغز را خالي.           تعلل درد زمان است. از ادوارد يانگاميل   و زندگی مثل «دوچرخه‌سواری» می‌مونه. واسه‌ی حفظ تعادلت همیشه باید در حرکت باشی.   آلبرت انیشتین       Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.           __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4110 (20090528) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4110 (20090528) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 14 19:45:19 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:15:19 -0430 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 14 20:41:14 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:41:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647500@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647500@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <874c02a20908141741p51a25b10j75b385eab7035feb@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits > because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the > quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., > Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. > if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind seeing > 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – say, 5 > per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of > time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. > More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? regards joe baptista > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > > > > Dear All > > > I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - > that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on > every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding > the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. > > Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date > announcements etc by list administrators. > > And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time > limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one > question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x > hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair > that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking > into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. > > And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ > "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change > your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier > position making it clear that that is what you are doing. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > > Hi all, > > I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with > the issue of decision making capacity. > > > The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates > contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their > membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific > lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant > within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or > moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. > > The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient > to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent > ad hominem attacks. > > After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 > days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is > so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. > > My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few > options for action. > One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion > elsewhere. > Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. > > The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to > take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam" > > The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of > abuse and appropriate means of action against it. > > > There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out > coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present > impasse and help restoring this discussion space. > > jeanette > > > > > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 14 20:59:57 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:59:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list In-Reply-To: <069501ca1cf9$98dac8f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <617968.75402.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <069501ca1cf9$98dac8f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <874c02a20908141759h5cc6940cx7f16cca97386e3e6@mail.gmail.com> see reply below - interspersed with laughter. On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Every so often I'll see someone new to the list respond to a posting by a > fellow I blocked several years ago - I can't recall his name for the moment > - and fell as if I should advise them as to the negative impact his full > participation would have on the list. > > But one does not want to discourage participation by newbies and I just > ignore. People seem to catch on fairly quickly. (Just recalled his name and > remember a fellow I respect in the industry asking me if I read his posts. I > said no, used to, but now I block him. He said he is amused and gains some > benefit from reading his posts. So Jeffrey, keep up the effort, some people > enjoy your posts.) > I agree. You can learn a lot from reading the Jeffrey posts - I certainly am a fan. But like all information on the Internet - one should do their research. One thing I do know about Jeffery is that he is good at stock market predictions vis a vis the subjects he follows. I tracked some of them.Very profitable. My recommendation to people is to never filter Jeffery out. In fact - create a filter and read him at your leisure. Jeffery should be required reading. > > But for me he doesn't exist. > But he does exist. You should call him and let him know just how many people enjoy Jeffery's posts. If you need his number - I'll provide it. Jeffery is an institution in and of himself. Of course he would be popular. You know. You should to me like your more jealous or even envious of Jeff's fame. > Milton blocked him. I block him. And others on the list probably block him. > He just doesn't exist as a problem for me. (As I might not exist to others > on this list.) > Your missing a lot. Did you hear the one about the ICANN employee affiliated with the NAZIs that Jeffery uncovered. I had to moderate an ICANN complaint atthe GA with Garside and Dierker. ICANN with Garside tried to have him banned from the GA. But our investigation of the ICANN complaint confirmed that the ICANN employee did in fact work for a former NAZI prior to joining ICANN. The complaint was dismissed by us as frivolous and vexatious since the material facts of the allegations by Jeffery were true. Jeff is famous. Jeff is a Star. Jeff is our legacy. A constant reminder to one and all. If anyone is unfamiliar with how to block someone, email me privately. > Great stuff. Folks - take advantage of this if you have too. Free technical support. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > P.S. One or two others here are near extinction, as is the "fix" > conversation. > Yes - I agree - the censorship trolls are at it again and Milton is busy feeding them. Not good. I'm a strong supporter in your self censorship. cheers and thanks for offering technical support. You should ask them for a tax receipt. do you know how many people here can benefit from this service. cheers joe baptista > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Aug 14 21:18:04 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:18:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Great debates In-Reply-To: <897839.1048.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <897839.1048.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <874c02a20908141818y204478d4l1885f2e52bb3d27b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > > I hope that by looking at that piece of history and then seeing what is > happening for the last months I can understand this talk of the list being > ruined by participation. > I'm with Thomas Lowenhaupt on this one. Self censorship is the only way this list is going to survive. The filter is a powerful tool. Not always accurate - but it works. Thomas Lowenhaupt has offered his services to provide the list members with technical support on installing filters. My belief at this moment is that the "mass unsubscribing" is simply a tool > being used by those to get what they want. And that would be to discredit > this list because it is not following the quiters desired results. I believe > there is some history to Milton and Fausset doing this in ICANN. I hope I am > wrong. > I agree. It's an old trick taught years ago to members of the BWG (Boston Working Group). It's just elitist intellectual intimidation tactics learned from the Internet pros. But in the end Milton is no Chomsky. Thats what he has done to himself by participating in this libelous and slanderous censorship troll feeding episode. This list is full of censorship trolls and Milton should know better then to feed the trolls. anyway - cheers joe baptista Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 14 22:53:27 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:53:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <45ed74050908141953m747942b8hfca9d56c520afb3e@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja and Colleagues: Thank you for spot-lighting this seminal area; some time ago we were planning to discuss Internet or Cyberspace *rights and responsibilities*, per se, and will welcome rejoining you / working groups / and all here on the universal yet here specialized topic. . P.S. In various forms of connection to such matters I am updating live vita just now, and working draft appears below, to establish/reestablish substantive connections including of course with you - can be skipped if you wish to end reading here. :) Linda. LDMF. Dr.Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, sending best wishes and welcoming you to *Respectful Interfaces*.. http://tinyurl.com/dr-misek-falkoff-081409 *Evolving Live Vita:* 2009 NGO Representative to United Nations ECOSOC (CCC/UN and World Education Fellowship). Founder/Director "Respectful Interfaces* Programme - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.) http://tiny.cc/081409RespectfulInterfaces Officer or Member: National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. Founder with Carol Jay Levy, Persons With Pain International accredited to the U.N. (DESA Enable) Bureau on The 'Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' (CRPD). http://www.youtube.com/user/RESPITES Member, e-lists and in person, U.N. Committees on thematic and practical subjects inc. age, gender, health, disability, values, education, and ICT. (in preparation). Topical Searches: For auto-update on Dr. Misek-Falkoff's legal achievements seeking *respectful interfaces* at dangerous railroad crossings (communication, coordination, collaboration of rr signals and motorists) click here. (in preparation). For judicial record on legal achievements regarding CyberLibel and related forms of CyberIssues click here. (in preparation). For documentation on inventions and discoveries ARPANnet forward click here (in preparation). On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at cis-india.org Sat Aug 15 03:20:50 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:50:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for > the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those > who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names > before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > Governance issues. > > > > Anja > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 04:38:30 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:38:30 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> Hi Anja and rest of the members, Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of the day. The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting activities. I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be intervening on this issue with more strength. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by > various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 anja at cis-india.org Sat Aug 15 05:16:15 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:46:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear Fouad, As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, I am under no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by the IGF Secretariat. I am quite aware of what happened during the Open Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and reread the whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what happened during the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback. I understand why Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact if Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of this IGF, I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. But none of that is the point here. What is the point is that we, as civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for attention for this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is important to continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion provided. This seems one such occasion to me. Even if we understand why the Draft Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep up our efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right now, then hopefully in the future. The only agenda that will get harmed by not raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, here, that I know there are others (though not me) who share his concerns. One point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF agenda is precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different stakeholders to trash such issues out. Anja On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi Anja and rest of the members, > > Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights > and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were > well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open > Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings > during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed > approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during > the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- > > It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two > recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by > the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance > for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable > and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter > (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of > the day. > > The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and > deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically > focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual > assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal > Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private > Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet > Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting > activities. > > I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this > list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically > participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders > being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the > European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in > Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be > intervening on this issue with more strength. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or > > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > > the IGF Secretariat. > > > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by > > various groups and individuals can be found here: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > > Thanks, > > Anja > > > > Suggested statement: > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that > > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of > > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for > > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the > > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected > > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > > provide the space to do so. > > > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > > discussions. > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > Hi Anja, > > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > > you send it in? > > > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > Governance issues. > > > > Anja > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 05:57:55 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, Aug 15 deadline Message-ID: <889491.39953.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Jeff,    Need I remind readers, of what are my core beliefs; Article 1.All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.   Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. I note this coming up again but it is being ignored in large part.  Again the issues center around fitting it in to someones agenda or timetable or being "on topic".  To me this is the topic of governance.  Unless and until we establish basic principals of human rights and dignity in the use of our Internet it will only be a capitalist tool to control and sell to the masses. Governments, IP interests, mega multinational corporations must all be limited by a robust proclamation of our most basic human rights in the area of freedom of speech and dignity.  It is of course a matter of dignified, respectful interface but without a steadfast foundation acknowledging inherent liberties it is by power's grace that we have rights not by rights.   www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, the foundation To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" , "Voice of Freedom" , gpaque at gmail.com Cc: mueller at syr.edu Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 9:15 PM #yiv1456227653 #yiv1987622656 #yiv1516634382 {font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}#yiv1456227653 #yiv1987622656 #yiv1516634382 p{margin:0px;} Eric and all,     Here, here!  Unfortunately Milton will not be pleased, nor shall Ginger.  Of course that's a shame... -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker Sent: Aug 9, 2009 12:10 AM To: Voice of Freedom Subject: [governance] Bill of Rights for Governance, the foundation In that it is not the governance that needs to be protected from the users. In that it is the users that must be protected from overbearing, self appointed, non-representative rulers in governance;   Know all persons by these presence.    1. All internet users regardless of Race, Color, National or Geographic Origins, sex, age, language, Education or lack thereof shall be treated equally.  (we may want to take a page from A2K and add handicapped, a page from our Gay and Lesbian users and add sexual preference, and just to be careful add faith and creed)   2. No organization shall be created that in any way purports to govern the internet that excludes any class or segment of society, including simple users without other stake, from representation therein.   3. No organization shall be formed by any nation in their sole national capacity that purports to govern any other nations useage of the Internet.   4. No commercial or governmental interest shall ever be given priority over the rights of users.   5. No government action shall in any way ever cause there to be an interruption in user access to the Internet.   6. No private or commercial provider shall allow or promote or cause to ocurr any abridgement of the basic human rights of Speech, Faith, Press or due process.   7. No restrictions upon the useage of the internet shall be promulgated by anything less than legitimate duly elected individuals.     Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 06:09:22 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <820915.24507.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Anja,   Please understand that sometimes in the course of human affairs being polite and pleasant is not respectful at all.  Above all, in our international UN experiences, must remain the respect and dignity of the individual. Note this is not of "an individual".  In order to truly respect the rights of all we must not be obessant to process or to leaders. Indeed due process and legitimate leadership cannot be conceived unless at the hands of a fully empowered netizenry afforded the right to participate in governance.   In war, few cheer for long as the victors' tanks rumble through the streets in victory.  But all mankind cheers forever when we see the ink stained voting fingers raised proud and true in a real victory of our spirit. We are nothing and shall remain nothing in governance until we treat the lowest user with the same human respect as we do the loftiest thinkers. --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Anja Kovacs wrote: From: Anja Kovacs Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 7:20 AM Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 06:25:16 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:25:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <701af9f70908150325qaa5ec0cu36153e7c5419749d@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja, I want to clear that I have not revoked your anticipation to get heard and neither have we as members of Civil Society at any stage prevented such interaction. The emphasis that I made very clear from my message earlier was that lets try to be there, lets try to group up others and for those that are unaware, lets educate them. One feeling that I had during the MAG meetings was that whenever we spoke about the issue of Human Rights or Internet Rights, you could see the glances between the various groups and lobbies and the nods and smirks. Its time to get the real agenda forward and I repeat, please try to be there physically or if Ginger can make it there, she can read out an IGC mutually agreed statement that does hold value, if she can't make it there, may be I will be present and can make the statement from IGC. Try to be vocal and send the message across to as many Civil Society members and groups as possible. The group will definitely have a larger impact and more intervention. You can actually interact with people then. I also discussed this with Sunil Abraham when I met him Geneva this May that CIS should join in the IG debate at any level possible and there should be a great amount of intervention so forth. Sunil networks with very important organizations and Civil Society groups that can join and contribute to the debate meaningfully! On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, I am under > no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by the IGF > Secretariat.  I am quite aware of what happened during the Open > Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and reread the > whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what happened during > the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback.  I understand why > Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact if > Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of this IGF, > I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. > > But none of that is the point here.  What is the point is that we, as > civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for attention for > this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is important to > continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion provided.  This > seems one such occasion to me.  Even if we understand why the Draft > Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep up our > efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right now, then > hopefully in the future.  The only agenda that will get harmed by not > raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. > > Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, here, that > I know there are others (though not me) who share his concerns.  One > point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF agenda is > precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different stakeholders to > trash such issues out. > > Anja > > On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Hi Anja and rest of the members, >> >> Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights >> and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were >> well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open >> Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings >> during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed >> approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during >> the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- >> >> It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two >> recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by >> the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance >> for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable >> and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter >> (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of >> the day. >> >> The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and >> deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically >> focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual >> assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal >> Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private >> Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet >> Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting >> activities. >> >> I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this >> list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically >> participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders >> being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the >> European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in >> Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be >> intervening on this issue with more strength. >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >> > >> > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and >> > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or >> > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of >> > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches >> > the IGF Secretariat. >> > >> > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC >> > submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by >> > various groups and individuals can be found here: >> > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Anja >> > >> > Suggested statement: >> > >> > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that >> > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of >> > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for >> > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the >> > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected >> > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and >> > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS >> > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly >> > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an >> > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is >> > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building >> > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and >> > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF >> > provide the space to do so. >> > >> > IGC Submission - April 2009: >> > >> > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet >> > Governance Caucus. >> > >> > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and >> > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to >> > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and >> > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to >> > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for >> > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. >> > >> > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and >> > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance >> > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding >> > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications >> > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open >> > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> > discussions. >> > >> > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It >> > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the >> > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> > >> > Hi Anja, >> > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the >> > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >> > >> > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who >> > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before >> > you send it in? >> > >> > Best, >> > Ginger >> > >> > Anja Kovacs wrote: >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >> > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >> > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >> > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >> > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >> > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >> > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >> > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >> > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >> > comment on this glaring absence.  Would it be possible for the IGC to >> > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >> > some of the wording of the April submission) >> > >> > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >> > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >> > and Society, Bangalore. >> > >> > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >> > Governance issues. >> > >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > Fellow >> > Centre for Internet and Society >> > T: +91 80 4092 6283 >> > www.cis-india.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 >> > >> > >> > >> > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > Fellow >> > Centre for Internet and Society >> > T: +91 80 4092 6283 >> > www.cis-india.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 >> > >> > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 07:46:37 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:16:37 -0430 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 07:53:23 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:53:23 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70908150453qbe9bc3aj6fb03dff9cdde2f2@mail.gmail.com> And yes of course Anja, you have me to for signing! On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by > various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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.roxana at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 08:17:25 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:17:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with In-Reply-To: <0c3e19c370dc6385e1f406f0b01b8745.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> References: <4A82CC9D.3060102@gmail.com> <5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com> <4A82E4F0.9030108@itforchange.net> <4A852474.1020600@wzb.eu> <0c3e19c370dc6385e1f406f0b01b8745.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0908150517i3e2d6b8ct6c337c69ee5b6a26@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, dear Katitza, could we have a spanish version of this article? Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, Roxana 2009/8/14 > EPIC Forces Disclosure of Government Contracts with Social Media > Companies, Privacy Terms Missing > > In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act Request, the Government > Services Administration released several contracts between the federal > government and web 2.0 companies, including agreements with Blip.tv, > Blist, Google (YouTube), Yahoo (Flickr), and MySpace. EPIC also obtained > amendments to agreements with Facebook, Slideshare.net, Vimeo.com, and > AddThis.com. The contracts do not address the privacy obligations of > social media companies. The GSA letter to EPIC explained that “no specific > Web 2.0 guidance currently exists,” but provided EPIC with Training Slides > that raise privacy issues. The GSA Agreement with Google actually states > that, “to the extent any rules or guidelines exist prohibiting the use of > persistent cookies in connection with Provider Content applies to Google, > Provider expressly waives those rules or guidelines as they may apply to > Google.” Some of the agreements also permit companies to track users of > government web sites for advertising purposes. For more information see > EPIC Social Network Privacy, EPIC Facebook, and EPIC Cloud Computing. > > http://epic.org/2009/08/epic-forces-disclosure-of-gove.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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Sat Aug 15 10:35:02 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (katitza at datos-personales.org) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:35:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Building in Surveillance Message-ID: <7861e5792e45f4d10d463ffadd867b2d.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> fyi, Building in Surveillance Crypto-Gram Newsletter Bruce Schneier Chief Security Technology Officer, BT China is the world's most successful Internet censor. While the Great Firewall of China isn't perfect, it effectively limits information flowing in and out of the country. But now the Chinese government is taking things one step further. Under a requirement taking effect soon, every computer sold in China will have to contain the Green Dam Youth Escort software package. Ostensibly a pornography filter, it is government spyware that will watch every citizen on the Internet. Green Dam has many uses. It can police a list of forbidden Web sites. It can monitor a user's reading habits. It can even enlist the computer in some massive botnet attack, as part of a hypothetical future cyberwar. China's actions may be extreme, but they're not unique. Democratic governments around the world -- Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom, for example -- are rushing to pass laws giving their police new powers of Internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell. Many are passing data retention laws, forcing companies to keep information on their customers. Just recently, the German government proposed giving itself the power to censor the Internet. The United States is no exception. The 1994 CALEA law required phone companies to facilitate FBI eavesdropping, and since 2001, the NSA has built substantial eavesdropping systems in the United States. The government has repeatedly proposed Internet data retention laws, allowing surveillance into past activities as well as present. Systems like this invite criminal appropriation and government abuse. New police powers, enacted to fight terrorism, are already used in situations of normal crime. Internet surveillance and control will be no different. Official misuses are bad enough, but the unofficial uses worry me more. Any surveillance and control system must itself be secured. An infrastructure conducive to surveillance and control invites surveillance and control, both by the people you expect and by the people you don't. China's government designed Green Dam for its own use, but it's been subverted. Why does anyone think that criminals won't be able to use it to steal bank account and credit card information, use it to launch other attacks, or turn it into a massive spam-sending botnet? Why does anyone think that only authorized law enforcement will mine collected Internet data or eavesdrop on phone and IM conversations? These risks are not theoretical. After 9/11, the National Security Agency built a surveillance infrastructure to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mails within the United States. Although procedural rules stated that only non-Americans and international phone calls were to be listened to, actual practice didn't always match those rules. NSA analysts collected more data than they were authorized to, and used the system to spy on wives, girlfriends, and famous people such as President Clinton. But that's not the most serious misuse of a telecommunications surveillance infrastructure. In Greece, between June 2004 and March 2005, someone wiretapped more than 100 cell phones belonging to members of the Greek government -- the prime minister and the ministers of defense, foreign affairs and justice. Ericsson built this wiretapping capability into Vodafone's products, and enabled it only for governments that requested it. Greece wasn't one of those governments, but someone still unknown -- a rival political party? organized crime? -- figured out how to surreptitiously turn the feature on. Researchers have already found security flaws in Green Dam that would allow hackers to take over the computers. Of course there are additional flaws, and criminals are looking for them. Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, and Secure Computing built Iran's surveillance infrastructure. U.S. companies helped build China's electronic police state. Twitter's anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents -- anonymity that many governments want to eliminate. Every year brings more Internet censorship and control -- not just in countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other free countries. The control movement is egged on by both law enforcement, trying to catch terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals, and by media companies, trying to stop file sharers. It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. No matter what the eavesdroppers and censors say, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0908.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Aug 15 12:53:38 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:53:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM To: anja at cis-india.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Hi Anja, Thanks for taking this up. Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Sat Aug 15 13:34:23 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:34:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> Thanks, Anja. Please add my name and APC. Willie Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM > *To:* anja at cis-india.org > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda > > > > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, > and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you > and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know > by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will > make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that > the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that > time by various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > Thanks, > Anja > > _Suggested statement:_ > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and > disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as > an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic > was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by > a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft > Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles > even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration > of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed > the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, > it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly > building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet > Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of > the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > _IGC Submission - April 2009:_ > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights > and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead > to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they > relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a > space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to > access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for > the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those > who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names > before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 13:39:41 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:39:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <161469B9304A4A1C986FCB95F40861DE@userPC> And add my name as well... M -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:21 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view &catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 15 13:50:37 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:50:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A86F56D.10500@wzb.eu> Dear Anja, please add my name as well. jeanette Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, > and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you > and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by > the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make > sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the > IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time > by various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > Thanks, > Anja > > _Suggested statement:_ > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment > that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the > agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as > a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors > during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread > support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not > include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the > main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis > Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make > these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning > is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the > meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend > that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > _IGC Submission - April 2009:_ > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate > to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space > for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access > the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with > current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of > the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi Anja, >> I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for >> the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >> >> If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those >> who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names >> before you send it in? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>> some of the wording of the April submission) >>> >>> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>> and Society, Bangalore. >>> >>> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>> Governance issues. >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> Fellow >>> Centre for Internet and Society >>> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>> www.cis-india.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 >>> >>> >> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 13:58:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <208640.60026.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please add my name.  Good job. --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Ginger Paque" Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 4:53 PM Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja   From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM To: anja at cis-india.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda   Hi Anja, Thanks for taking this up. Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt . This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all,  As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the DraftProgramme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is thecomplete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - infact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internetrights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a mainsession repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DCand the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations.Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as amain session at this point, I think it is important for us to at leastcomment on this glaring absence.  Would it be possible for the IGC toexpress, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could usesome of the wording of the April submission)   For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, Ialso would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internetand Society, Bangalore .   I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on InternetGovernance issues.  Anja    Dr. Anja KovacsFellowCentre for Internet and SocietyT: +91 80 4092 6283www.cis-india.org  ____________________________________________________________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           plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________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    Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org   -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 15 14:00:19 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Rights Message-ID: Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Rights I would like to canvas the List for ideas pertaining to "Rights". A few of the current Rights in the U.S. include: Youth rights Voting rights Freedom(s) rights Equality rights Labor rights Judicial rights Health Care rights ... The Question is: How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective the Right) ??? - Digression: When a Rights Declaration is codified (written into Law), it imparts "Entitlements" too the immediate Rights Class (the people affected), which is met with an expectation of Services and Welfare systems which are financially achievable/accessable by the affected Class. Currently in the United States there is a heated debate on Healthcare; How it should be paid for, How can it be Equally distributed, How can it be structured so that the Benefit($) are not abused by certain industrial Groups (Doctors, Pharmacy Co.s, Health Care Providers...), How can its Governance be maintained, etc. etc. ... One point of contention regarding Healthcare Rights, is that, Those in Political Office enjoy access to healthcare systems that are superior in respect to the variety and cost, as opposed to Citizens who's system of Healthcare is less in comparison. [In other words; Washington D.C.'s Senators and Representatives have a better healthcare package than the People they serve] Another comparable analogy is the State of California's Furlough program, where the State Employees are subject to Furlough Days (currently a 15% reduction in pay) and California State Legislature is not (Systemic/Ruling Class inequities). There is also debate on the Cost of 'Entitlement' by Public-vs-Private means; How, Who, and Who not should pay the cost of the Right's Entitlement. When we talk of Internet Rights, simular considerations need to be made for Declarations' of Rights , please use this as an analogy for IG Rights. Again... The Question is: How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective the Right) ??? Write a Declaration (of Rights) in response to this question, ... tailor it to IG Rights if you like. ----------------------------------------------------- This thread is intended for discussion during IG Open Topic Hours [5:00pm Fridays-11pm Sundays], Please respect that. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Sat Aug 15 15:09:48 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:09:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <208640.60026.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <208640.60026.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: IP Justice signs this letter. Thanks for your hard work. Best, Robin On Aug 15, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Please add my name. Good job. > > --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > From: Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 > agenda > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , > "Ginger Paque" > Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 4:53 PM > > Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM > To: anja at cis-india.org > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 > agenda > > > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's > suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find > below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, > please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your > time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that > the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around > that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace? > func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and > disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained > as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this > topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main > session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the > Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The > WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, > explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these > commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning > is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around > the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We > recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet > Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt . This > should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the > definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, > and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It > also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of > all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of > openness and universal access. This framework will continue to > emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in > Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of > individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. > This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each > other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time > for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that > those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can > add names before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to > strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the > IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included > as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For > those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for > Internet > and Society, > Bangalore . > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja > Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message > to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Sat Aug 15 15:53:17 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:53:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: Anja, ISOC Philippines Chapter previously sent a statement last May to the OC, through our Internet Governance Working Group that I chair, and read by Ginger, supporting Internet Rights and Principles as the theme for this year's IGF. So any concern on making Internet Rights and Principles in the IGF agenda, will have my support. I can also bring this up with a consensus again with my colleagues in ISOC PH and we may support it also as a group. Just for your FYI, here is the first paragraph of the statement we sent to the IGF Secretariat during the second OC: "The newly rejuvenated ISOC chapter of the Philippines would like to emphasize our interest for Internet Rights and Principles as a major theme for the IGF 2009. We address this theme with great support, as it is currently a vital and emerging topic for Internet Governance. This support is in line with ISOC Philippine’s upholding the spirit of core values that guide our policy work in our ability to connect, to speak, to innovate, to share, to choose , and to trust." Thank you for not giving up on this. Kindest regards. Charity G. Embley ISOC PH IGWG Chair On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, I am under > no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by the IGF > Secretariat. I am quite aware of what happened during the Open > Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and reread the > whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what happened during > the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback. I understand why > Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact if > Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of this IGF, > I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. > > But none of that is the point here. What is the point is that we, as > civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for attention for > this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is important to > continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion provided. This > seems one such occasion to me. Even if we understand why the Draft > Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep up our > efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right now, then > hopefully in the future. The only agenda that will get harmed by not > raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. > > Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, here, that > I know there are others (though not me) who share his concerns. One > point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF agenda is > precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different stakeholders to > trash such issues out. > > Anja > > On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Hi Anja and rest of the members, > > > > Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of Internet Rights > > and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this issue were > > well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the Open > > Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings > > during the same period. I would recommend that you take an informed > > approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this issue during > > the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- > > > > It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into account the two > > recommendations continuously requested throughout the three days by > > the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet Governance > > for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested to enable > > and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the Universal > > Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights Charter > > (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the light of > > the day. > > > > The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse and > > deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not specifically > > focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for mutual > > assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks equal > > Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, Private > > Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on Internet > > Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda setting > > activities. > > > > I am afraid that your request despite the input and support from this > > list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you physically > > participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all stakeholders > > being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at the > > European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF itself in > > Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will be > > intervening on this issue with more strength. > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > > > > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, > and > > > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you > and/or > > > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the > end of > > > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it > reaches > > > the IGF Secretariat. > > > > > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the > IGC > > > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by > > > various groups and individuals can be found here: > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Anja > > > > > > Suggested statement: > > > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment > that > > > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the > agenda of > > > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme > for > > > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and > in the > > > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not > reflected > > > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights > and > > > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS > > > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > > > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > to an > > > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it > is > > > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > > > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > > > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 > IGF > > > provide the space to do so. > > > > > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > > Governance Caucus. > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights > and > > > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > > > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > > > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they > relate to > > > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > > > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness > and > > > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > importance > > > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while > adding > > > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and > applications > > > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an > “open > > > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality > > > discussions. > > > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > > > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > > > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anja, > > > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for > the > > > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > > > > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those > who > > > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names > before > > > you send it in? > > > > > > Best, > > > Ginger > > > > > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is > the > > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations. > > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as > a > > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, > I > > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > > Governance issues. > > > > > > Anja > > > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at cis-india.org Sat Aug 15 16:01:11 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:31:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <1250366471.2354.2.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear Charity, Thank you very much for reaffirming your support to this issue. However, I will need to send this to the IGF Secretariat within another ten hours or so - do you think this is sufficient time for you to check with your colleagues whether you want to extend institutional support, or shall I only add your name at the moment (with or without your organisational affiliation, as you prefer)? Do let me know how to proceed. Best wishes, Anja On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 14:53 -0500, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Anja, > > ISOC Philippines Chapter previously sent a statement last May to the > OC, through our Internet Governance Working Group that I chair, and > read by Ginger, supporting Internet Rights and Principles as the theme > for this year's IGF. So any concern on making Internet Rights and > Principles in the IGF agenda, will have my support. I can also bring > this up with a consensus again with my colleagues in ISOC PH and we > may support it also as a group. > > Just for your FYI, here is the first paragraph of the statement we > sent to the IGF Secretariat during the second OC: > > "The newly rejuvenated ISOC chapter of the Philippines would like to > emphasize our interest for Internet Rights and Principles as a major > theme for the IGF 2009. We address this theme with great support, as > it is currently a vital and emerging topic for Internet Governance. > This support is in line with ISOC Philippine’s upholding the spirit of > core values that guide our policy work in our ability to connect, to > speak, to innovate, to share, to choose , and to trust." > > Thank you for not giving up on this. > > Kindest regards. > Charity G. Embley > ISOC PH IGWG Chair > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > As I already pointed out in my initial message on this issue, > I am under > no illusion that this suggestion is going to be taken up by > the IGF > Secretariat. I am quite aware of what happened during the > Open > Consultations (I watched most of the webcast at the time and > reread the > whole transcript last week), and have some idea of what > happened during > the MAG, through both formal and informal feedback. I > understand why > Internet Rights and Principles are not on the agenda - in fact > if > Internet Rights and Principles would have become the theme of > this IGF, > I would have been thrilled but also quite surprised. > > But none of that is the point here. What is the point is that > we, as > civil society members, have been repeatedly asking for > attention for > this issue, and as long as this request is not heard, it is > important to > continue to do so at every formal and informal occasion > provided. This > seems one such occasion to me. Even if we understand why the > Draft > Programme is what it is, this is hardly a reason not to keep > up our > efforts at changing that agenda - if not with results right > now, then > hopefully in the future. The only agenda that will get harmed > by not > raising our voices at every opportunity is our own. > > Perhaps I should also add, in response to Carlton's message, > here, that > I know there are others (though not me) who share his > concerns. One > point of getting Internet Rights and Principles on the IGF > agenda is > precisely to get a space in a formal arena for different > stakeholders to > trash such issues out. > > Anja > > > On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 13:38 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Hi Anja and rest of the members, > > > > Thank you for sharing your concerns over the issue of > Internet Rights > > and I must share with you that the concerns regarding this > issue were > > well raised by the Civil Society stakeholders during the > Open > > Consultations in May 2009 in Geneva as well as during the > MAG meetings > > during the same period. I would recommend that you take an > informed > > approach rather than a vague one. The IGC presented this > issue during > > the Open Consultations and the transcript can be read at: > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/71-transcripts-/410-transcript-of-the-13-may-open-consultations- > > > > It is true that the IGF Secretariat did not take into > account the two > > recommendations continuously requested throughout the three > days by > > the Civil Society that are Internet Rights and the Internet > Governance > > for Development IG4D Agenda. It was continuously requested > to enable > > and ensure that Internet Rights in the context of the > Universal > > Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Internet Rights > Charter > > (APC) be taken into account but that matter didn't see the > light of > > the day. > > > > The broader themes of the main sessions enable the discourse > and > > deliberate on various and/or multiple issues but not > specifically > > focus on a core set of issues and devise principles for > mutual > > assertion. You will also have to realize that the MAG lacks > equal > > Civil Society representation and there are more Governments, > Private > > Sector and Technical Community people to turn the tables on > Internet > > Rights and the Internet Governance for Development agenda > setting > > activities. > > > > I am afraid that your request despite the input and support > from this > > list will meet deaf years. I would suggest that you > physically > > participate in the IGF planning meeting, open to all > stakeholders > > being held in Geneva on 16-17 September 2009 taking place at > the > > European Broadcasting Union offices as well as the IGF > itself in > > Sharam this year and join the group of CS members that will > be > > intervening on this issue with more strength. > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > @skBajwa > > Answering all your technology questions > > http://www.askbajwa.com > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anja > Kovacs wrote: > > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > > > > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's > suggestion, and > > > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. > If you and/or > > > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me > know by the end of > > > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will > make sure it reaches > > > the IGF Secretariat. > > > > > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the > statement that the IGC > > > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around > that time by > > > various groups and individuals can be found here: > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Anja > > > > > > Suggested statement: > > > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and > disappointment that > > > Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item > on the agenda of > > > the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested > as a theme for > > > this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors > during and in the > > > run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread > support is not reflected > > > in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include > Internet Rights and > > > Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main > sessions. The WSIS > > > Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, > 2005, explicitly > > > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights to an > > > inclusive information society. To make these commitments > meaningful, it is > > > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly > building > > > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet > Rights and > > > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda > of the 2009 IGF > > > provide the space to do so. > > > > > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the > Civil Society Internet > > > Governance Caucus. > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support > "Internet Rights and > > > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This > should lead to > > > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the > definition and > > > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and > how they relate to > > > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes > a space for > > > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > > > > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance > of openness and > > > universal access. This framework will continue to > emphasize the importance > > > of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding > > > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content > and applications > > > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates > regarding an “open > > > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing > network neutrality > > > discussions. > > > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion > of the > > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to > each other. It > > > allows for open examination of the principles that should > govern the > > > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anja, > > > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there > is time for the > > > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > > > > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, > so that those who > > > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can > add names before > > > you send it in? > > > > > > Best, > > > Ginger > > > > > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on > the Draft > > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read > this paper is the > > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and > principles - in > > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - > despite Internet > > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic > for a main > > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the > IGC, the IRP DC > > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open > Consultations. > > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being > included as a > > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us > to at least > > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for > the IGC to > > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? > (we could use > > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to > interact before, I > > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre > for Internet > > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on > Internet > > > Governance issues. > > > > > > Anja > > > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > > Fellow > > > Centre for Internet and Society > > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Aug 15 17:24:45 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:24:45 +1000 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> Message-ID: Add me as well On 15/08/09 9:46 PM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Hi Anja, > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >> >> As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and >> have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below.  If you and/or your >> organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, >> 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF >> Secretariat. >> >> Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC >> submitted in April.  A few other submissions, made around that time by >> various groups and individuals can be found here: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id >> =14 >> >> Thanks, >> Anja >> >> Suggested statement: >> >> The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that >> Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of >> the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for >> this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the >> run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected >> in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and >> Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS >> Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly >> reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an >> inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of >> great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building >> understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and >> Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF >> provide the space to do so. >> >> IGC Submission - April 2009: >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and >> Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to >> discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification >> of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing >> definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about >> the responsibilities of all parties. >> >> The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and >> universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of >> access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to >> it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of >> their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an ³open >> Internet², and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality >> discussions. >> >> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the >> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It >> allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the >> Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hi Anja, >>> I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the >>> list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >>> >>> If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who >>> want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before >>> you send it in? >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>>> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>>> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>>> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>>> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>>> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>>> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>>> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>>> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>>> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>>> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>>> some of the wording of the April submission) >>>> >>>> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>>> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>>> and Society, Bangalore. >>>> >>>> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>>> Governance issues. >>>> >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> Fellow >>>> Centre for Internet and Society >>>> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>> www.cis-india.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> Fellow >>>> Centre for Internet and Society >>>> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>> www.cis-india.org >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 15 17:46:24 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:46:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <701af9f70908150138n3fd7f1cbl29a9f2e71e33b725@mail.gmail.com> <1250327775.25197.160.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220B34@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > trash such issues out. > > Anja thrash? ;-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 17:59:47 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:59:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <808a83f60908151459x3266152ap4387568774b4c2f0@mail.gmail.com> Hello. I am relatively new to this list but I have been intently reading the discussions over the last few weeks. I would like to add my name to Anja's suggestion as well. Rgds, Tracy On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Please add my name as well. Thanks for catching this, Anja > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:47 AM > *To:* anja at cis-india.org > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda > > > > Hi Anja, > > Thanks for taking this up. > > Please add my name as an individual signer (no organization). > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and > have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or > your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of > today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches > the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC > submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by > various groups and individuals can be found here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > *Suggested statement:* > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment > that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the > agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a > theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during > and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is > not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet > Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The > WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly > reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an > inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is > of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building > understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and > Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF > provide the space to do so. > > *IGC Submission - April 2009:* > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and > Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to > discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to > pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for > discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance > of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding > to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications > of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open > Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the > Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the > list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who > want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before > you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > > some of the wording of the April submission) > > > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > > and Society, Bangalore. > > > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > > Governance issues. > > > > Anja > > > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > Fellow > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > > www.cis-india.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 > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Sat Aug 15 18:31:16 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <273668.45519.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Please Add my Name Shaila Rao Mistry Individual Signer ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque ; anja at cis-india.org Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:24:45 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda >>Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >>>> >>>>As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. >>>> >>>>Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Anja >>>> >>>> Suggested statement: >>>> >>>>The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. >>>> >>>> IGC Submission - April 2009: >> >>>>The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >>>> >>>>The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. >>>> >>>>The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >>>> >>>>The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >>>> >>>> >>>>On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >> >>Hi Anja, >>>>>>I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? >>>>>> >>>>>>Best, >>>>>>Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>>Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>>>>>As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>>>>>>>Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>>>>>>>complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>>>>>>>fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>>>>>>>rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>>>>>>>session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>>>>>>>and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>>>>>>>Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>>>>>>>main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>>>>>>>comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>>>>>>>express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>>>>>>>some of the wording of the April submission) >>>> >>>>>>>>For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>>>>>>>also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>>>>>>>and Society, Bangalore. >>>> >>>>>>>>I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>>>>>>>Governance issues. >>>> >>>>>>>>Anja >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>>>Fellow >>>>>>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>>>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>>www.cis-india.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 >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>>>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>>>Fellow >>>>>>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>>>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>>>>>> www.cis-india.org >>>> >>>>________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Sat Aug 15 18:40:27 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545210.37523.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> On second thought please add my name as an organization as well ! I was in Geneva and in Tunisia in 2003 when the WSIS Declaration of Principles was made. A lot of work has been put in by many people across the globe...I there anything we can do about this ? I am truly disappointed at this development!! Shaila Rao Mistry Internet Rights and Principles ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque ; anja at cis-india.org Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:24:45 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. >> >>As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. >> >>Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 >> >>Thanks, >>Anja >> >> Suggested statement: >> >>The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. >> >> IGC Submission - April 2009: >> >>The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. >> >>The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. >> >>The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. >> >>The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. >> >> >>On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> >>Hi Anja, >>>I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. >>> >>>If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? >>> >>>Best, >>>Ginger >>> >>>Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>>>Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>>>complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>>>fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>>>rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>>>session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>>>and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>>>Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>>>main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>>>comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>>>express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>>>some of the wording of the April submission) >>>> >>>>For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>>>also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>>>and Society, Bangalore. >>>> >>>>I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>>>Governance issues. >>>> >>>>Anja >>>> >>>> >>>>Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>Fellow >>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>>www.cis-india.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>Fellow >>>>Centre for Internet and Society >>>>T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>>> www.cis-india.org >>>> >>>>________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 15 22:05:02 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:05:02 -0400 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to Message-ID: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm holding you accountable here in your public role. On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. > Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You set the minimum standards - abera lege? You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should known better - isto pensitaris. You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your hands. You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if someone references that with your position. > Trying reading more carefully next time. > All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. kindest regards joe baptista --MM > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Joe Baptista > *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* Rui Correia > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits > because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the > quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., > > Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. > Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? > Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. > > > if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind > seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – > say, 5 per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty > of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. > > More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are > here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. > > Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? > > regards > joe baptista > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM > > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list > > > > Dear All > > > > I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - > that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on > every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding > the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. > > Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date > announcements etc by list administrators. > > And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time > limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one > question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x > hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair > that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking > into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. > > And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ > "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change > your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier > position making it clear that that is what you are doing. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > > > 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann > > Hi all, > > I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with > the issue of decision making capacity. > > > The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates > contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their > membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific > lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant > within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or > moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. > > The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient > to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent > ad hominem attacks. > > After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 > days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is > so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. > > My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few > options for action. > One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion > elsewhere. > Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. > > The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to > take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: > > "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those > relating to: > *No personal insults > *No spam" > > The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of > abuse and appropriate means of action against it. > > > There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out > coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present > impasse and help restoring this discussion space. > > jeanette > > > > > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Aug 15 22:23:54 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:23:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <545210.37523.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: ,<545210.37523.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2259ED11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Please add my name as well Lee W McKnight ________________________________________ From: shaila mistry [shailam at yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 6:40 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda On second thought please add my name as an organization as well ! I was in Geneva and in Tunisia in 2003 when the WSIS Declaration of Principles was made. A lot of work has been put in by many people across the globe...I there anything we can do about this ? I am truly disappointed at this development!! Shaila Rao Mistry Internet Rights and Principles ________________________________ From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque ; anja at cis-india.org Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:24:45 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Anja Kovacs wrote: Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 22:43:50 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:43:50 -0700 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> Rather than attempting to deal with personalities/intentions (viz. "trolls/trollism") I think we should focus on acceptable/unacceptable behaviours. In the lists I've hosted over the years I've adopted the "living room rule" i.e. any behaviour that I wouldn't accept in my living room I won't accept on an e-list that I host... The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour that is evidenced below and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off discussion and restrict participation. I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce arbitrarily or otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour (attacks on the person not on the idea for example) and after appropriate warning remove offenders from the list accordingly. This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and necessary for the on-going effective functioning of this group. MBG -----Original Message----- From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:05 PM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm holding you accountable here in your public role. On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You set the minimum standards - abera lege? You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should known better - isto pensitaris. You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your hands. You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if someone references that with your position. Trying reading more carefully next time. All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. kindest regards joe baptista --MM _____ From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – say, 5 per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? regards joe baptista _____ From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at publicroot.org Sat Aug 15 23:00:20 2009 From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> References: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> Message-ID: <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> On 8/15/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour > do you read latin? that is evidenced below > No it is not. You need latin to understand it. and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind > unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off > discussion and restrict participation. > > I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce arbitrarily or > otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour (attacks on the person > not on the idea for example) and after appropriate warning remove offenders > from the list accordingly. > Now would that mean Milton would be held accountable for his libel and slander. Since everything you have pointed out applies to him. Or are elitist intellectuals excluded from these arbitrary policies? This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and necessary for > the on-going effective functioning of this group. > It's censorship. If it's arbitrary in any way then it's censorship. I think the filter guy has the better idea. Anyway - here I am feeding the censorship trolls. cheers joe baptista MBG > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Joe Baptista > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:05 PM > *To:* Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] > Trying to > > > Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm > holding you accountable here in your public role. > > On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. >> > > Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with > me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You > set the minimum standards - abera lege? > > You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It > is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big > problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called > advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the > censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should > known better - isto pensitaris. > > You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter > and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look > after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very > impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the > TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard > Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non > disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. > > But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you > can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of > the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very > much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an > intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The > eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your > hands. > > You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. > Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your > forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. > > Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual > bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if > someone references that with your position. > > >> Trying reading more carefully next time. >> > > All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum > assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum > coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. > > kindest regards > joe baptista > > > > --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Joe Baptista >> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller >> *Cc:* Rui Correia >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >> >> Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits >> because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the >> quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., >> >> Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. >> Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? >> Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. >> >> >> if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn’t mind >> seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit – >> say, 5 per day – would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty >> of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. >> >> More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you >> are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. >> >> Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? >> >> regards >> joe baptista >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM >> >> >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list >> >> >> >> Dear All >> >> >> >> I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - >> that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on >> every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding >> the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. >> >> Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date >> announcements etc by list administrators. >> >> And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a >> time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than >> one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x >> hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair >> that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking >> into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. >> >> And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ >> "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change >> your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier >> position making it clear that that is what you are doing. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> >> 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann >> >> Hi all, >> >> I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with >> the issue of decision making capacity. >> >> >> The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates >> contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their >> membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific >> lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant >> within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or >> moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. >> >> The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not >> sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters >> don't prevent ad hominem attacks. >> >> After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 >> days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is >> so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. >> >> My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few >> options for action. >> One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion >> elsewhere. >> Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on >> abuse. >> >> The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to >> take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: >> >> "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those >> relating to: >> *No personal insults >> *No spam" >> >> The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of >> abuse and appropriate means of action against it. >> >> >> There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out >> coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present >> impasse and help restoring this discussion space. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 15 23:22:37 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to In-Reply-To: <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> Message-ID: <192210.58530.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> And what exactly is calling people trolls? --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Michael Gurstein wrote:    (viz. "trolls/trollism") I think we should focus on acceptable/unacceptable behaviours.  The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour that is evidenced below and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off discussion and restrict participation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 16 00:21:46 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Message-ID: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am concerned that with the JPA significant dates edging ever closer, this type of anti American revisionist history will become more prevalant. Let us hope not. Let us begin by making it known that innaccuracies such as this will be challenged.   America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not run our rig that way.  Doctrines are a statement of intention by executives in governance, they are not law or treaty.  The Monroe Doctrine is a statement against a Holy Alliance that threatened to reinstate colonialism.  It was a statement to our lawmakers how the executive planned on dealing with others.   All nations are allowed to make moves to secure their borders.  Internet governance must accept and enjoy the cultural integrity that goes along with this forever necessity.  All nations should feel confident and indeed plan for future independence regarding telecommunications.  If the United States can effectively maintain and control access to information for other countries, it would be incumbent upon those countries to change that reliance.   --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" Cc: "Carlton Samuels" , ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:10 PM Hello All, President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on notice that the US has cyberturf, and that we will defend our turf" It would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to the whole world.  What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in that sense. Why would Oracle say this? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini Carlton  I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this.    Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados &  IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464   From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?   Um, see, history matters!  Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson.  And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance.  I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine.   I won't even mention Haiti.   Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk.  And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Aug 16 03:06:37 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:06:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> Message-ID: Please add my name if it's not too late. Sorry for my tardiness; I've been avoiding this list lately for reasons that will be familiar. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Aug 16 03:34:07 2009 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:34:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A86A01D.6030603@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B647516@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A86F19F.2000000@apc.org> Message-ID: <20090816073407.GA13469@musti.tarvainen.info> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 03:06:37PM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wrote: > Please add my name if it's not too late. Mine, likewise. > Sorry for my tardiness; I've been avoiding this list lately for > reasons that will be familiar. My apologies for lateness as well. -- Tapani Tarvainen Chairman, Electronic Frontier Finland (EFFI) email tapani.tarvainen at effi.org tel. +358-40-7293479 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at cis-india.org Sun Aug 16 05:48:04 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:18:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] comment on draft programme paper now submitted Message-ID: <1250416084.3386.43.camel@cis5-laptop> The comment on the draft programme paper has now been submitted to the IGF Secretariat, as below. Thank you to all those who have extended their support at such short notice. I have been tremendously happy to see how many people have gotten back on this within only slightly more than 24 hours - it's encouraging to see what potential this list continues to have, despite recent events :) Best wishes, Anja Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009 We, the undersigned would like to express our surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. Signatories: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Trace F. Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Aug 16 06:00:13 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:00:13 +0700 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A87D8AD.4040807@gmx.net> Joe, the way you are defining yourself seems you aim to exclude yourself: some time ago you said something like "don't come me with arguments" as you will not accept arguments - but a mailing list is about arguments; now you accuse others of being elitist - but you write in Latin knowing that there will probably not be many who can read it - so your own writing shows you want to be elitist (which you disprove yourself by the dirty language you often use). Ridiculous. Norbert = Joe Baptista wrote: > > On 8/15/09, *Michael Gurstein* > wrote: > > > The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour > > > do you read latin? > > that is evidenced below > > > No it is not. You need latin to understand it. > > and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my > mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise > close off discussion and restrict participation. > > I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce > arbitrarily or otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour > (attacks on the person not on the idea for example) and after > appropriate warning remove offenders from the list accordingly. > > > Now would that mean Milton would be held accountable for his libel and > slander. Since everything you have pointed out applies to him. Or are > elitist intellectuals excluded from these arbitrary policies? > > > This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and > necessary for the on-going effective functioning of this group. > > > It's censorship. If it's arbitrary in any way then it's censorship. I > think the filter guy has the better idea. > > Anyway - here I am feeding the censorship trolls. > > cheers > joe baptista > -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: Cambodia Made It Again into the International Media http://tinyurl.com/m8n7je (To read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shahzad at bytesforall.net Sun Aug 16 11:25:06 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:25:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: Dear Anja, Add my name too and Bytesforall, Pakistan. best wishes Shahzad ----- Original Message ----- From: Anja Kovacs To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ginger Paque Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Thank you to all those who responded to my question. As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 Thanks, Anja Suggested statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. IGC Submission - April 2009: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 16 10:52:38 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:52:38 -0400 Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <874c02a20908151905w27f4a388u40f97a5931453fa5@mail.gmail.com> <3C4CF76998DD40DEA9B5DBC2A2781CE8@userPC> <874c02a20908152000l797ce392k8fc2a1c9dbb513fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B64751B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Joe, you've made my filter list. --MM ________________________________ From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] On 8/15/09, Michael Gurstein > wrote: The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour do you read latin? that is evidenced below No it is not. You need latin to understand it. and by emails coming from several new members of the list is to my mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close off discussion and restrict participation. I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce arbitrarily or otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour (attacks on the person not on the idea for example) and after appropriate warning remove offenders from the list accordingly. Now would that mean Milton would be held accountable for his libel and slander. Since everything you have pointed out applies to him. Or are elitist intellectuals excluded from these arbitrary policies? This is not censorship, rather it is self-preservation and necessary for the on-going effective functioning of this group. It's censorship. If it's arbitrary in any way then it's censorship. I think the filter guy has the better idea. Anyway - here I am feeding the censorship trolls. cheers joe baptista MBG -----Original Message----- From: publicroot.info@gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:05 PM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm holding you accountable here in your public role. On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You set the minimum standards - abera lege? You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should known better - isto pensitaris. You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander. But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your hands. You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises. Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte. Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if someone references that with your position. Trying reading more carefully next time. All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you. kindest regards joe baptista --MM ________________________________ From: publicroot.info@gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship. Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project? Instead of advocating censorship? Milton. if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldn't mind seeing 10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit - say, 5 per day - would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense. Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join? regards joe baptista ________________________________ From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list Dear All I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members - that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date announcements etc by list administrators. And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions. And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position making it clear that that is what you are doing. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann Hi all, I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with the issue of decision making capacity. The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse. The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent ad hominem attacks. After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10 days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls. My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options for action. One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion elsewhere. Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse. The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to take into account other forms of of discourse pollution: "Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those relating to: *No personal insults *No spam" The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of abuse and appropriate means of action against it. There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present impasse and help restoring this discussion space. jeanette Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Aug 16 14:44:16 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:44:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> Not checking this list regularly, I hope there is still time -- please add my name and Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. --c.a. Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Anja, > > Add my name too and Bytesforall, Pakistan. > > best wishes > Shahzad > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anja Kovacs > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ginger Paque > Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:20 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda > > > Thank you to all those who responded to my question. > > As time is indeed short, I would like to take up Ginger's suggestion, and have drafted a brief statement, which you can find below. If you and/or your organisation would like to sign this, please let me know by the end of today, 15 August (whatever your time zone), and I will make sure it reaches the IGF Secretariat. > > Below the proposed statement, I have also pasted the statement that the IGC submitted in April. A few other submissions, made around that time by various groups and individuals can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/discussionspace?func=view&catid=5&id=14 > > Thanks, > Anja > > Suggested statement: > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 19:15 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Anja, > I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. > > If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? > > Best, > Ginger > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor --- Rits -------------------------------------------------- www.rits.org.br www.rets.org.br www.ritsnet.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 avri at acm.org Sun Aug 16 14:56:53 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:56:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> On 16 Aug 2009, at 14:44, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Not checking this list regularly, I hope there is still time -- please > add my name and Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Hi, Having submitted it by the deadline, I am sure there will no problem submitting an update once there has been a chance to collect the names of all of those who wish to sign on to the statement. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 16 15:08:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: Milton don't//Duties and Rights In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B64751B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <865589.33224.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have seldom been so aggravated by my inability to express my sadness.  This comment is by a good man.  This comment made in public is just horrible.  Everyone should have private filters.  Everyone should choose which mail to open, what TV to watch, what friend to ring up.  But to state in public, in a clear attempt to belittle and humiliate another  ---  in attempting to make oneself look better, is below bad charactar.  I respect Joe and Milton.  I am extremely saddend that they are so fustrated with current conditions that this is made public.    I have no right to criticize another mans' judgment.  But correspondingly I have no right to shirk my duty to say something when the dignity and human rights of another are degraded.  Milton please regain your own dignity and recapture a little of our trust in your judgment. --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: Joe, you’ve made my filter list. --MM   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 16 16:26:31 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <584449.51887.qm@web45202.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hi Ginger,  Please add my name   as well ! I was in Geneva and in Tunisia in 2003 and( in Tunisia2005)  when the  WSIS Declaration of Principles was made. Dina Hovakmian --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anja Kovacs" Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:45 PM Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 16 16:33:17 2009 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250366471.2354.2.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <42621.26185.qm@web45205.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 16 19:41:50 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:41:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Message-ID: <76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com> On August 15, 2009 "Yehuda Katz" wrote: > Again... The Question is: > How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that > it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's > Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective > the Right) ??? Hi, I'm Paul Lehto, and this question of rights in the law of democracy is sort of my primary area of interest as a writer and former election law attorney (details below in case anyone's interested). I published in 2008 a lengthy legal encyclopedia article on the political theorists of democracy. My Short Answer (and I submit, ever so humbly, that the extended answer below is worth anyone's time that is interested in their own freedom or rights or of others' freedom and rights): The rights must be conceived and placed beyond the power of any group, government, individual or business to modify, even by amending a Constitution, and it must be a democracy of one person one vote equality, with universal suffrage, and recourse to the electorate on any issue deemed of importance to them (since they are in charge), by some reasonable procedure for invoking the rights of "We the People" Mid-Length Explanation or Foundation for the Above: Obviously, the only time anyone really needs a right is to do something somebody else doesn't want them to do -- or even that a majority doesn't want them to do, like speak to an unpopular issue. Karl Llewellyn said that the "law [itself] begins" here -- when two people disagree. But certainly rights are critical against any power, including majoritiarian power expressed through a legislature, if universal human rights and freedoms are to be preserved. The majority can't just silence the minority before or after it wins some legislative victory. If you follow what I'm saying above, and wish to resist tyranny of the majority as well as governmental tyranny and the tyranny of any other large concentration of power, then there must be a conception of rights that is beyond the ability of the majority, the government or any other power to legitimately alter or control. Thus, such rights, while they can be violated, even violated for a very long time and egregiously so, NEVER go away or get waived. They just get violated. Some call the above class of rights "inalienable" rights, others call them birthrights, still others call them nonderogable human rights, some call them natural law. Whatever they be termed, they are, as the most conservative founder of the USA put them (Alexander Hamilton, who at one point even offered up the idea of a king coming from Prussia!): "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments, or musty records. The are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured BY MORTAL POWER." In other words, nothing on this earth can change the inalienable rights, they need not be, and often aren't, in Constitutions or "old parchments," they are derived from Reason Justice and the sense of right and wrong of our moral sense, which in turn are derived, depending on the preferences of who's the writer, either from Nature, Reason, Almighty God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and so on. The CRITICAL thing is that the rights are placed beyond "ANY MORTAL POWER'S" ability to LEGITIMATELY alter them. A constitution can be amended, at least by a supermajority and sometimes by a majority. If inalienable rights are placed in constitutions, they function only as reminders, and there's a danger in putting them there because it may become perceived that they are political footballs subject to majoritarian decisions or tyranny, when this is not so. If one wishes to be free from majoritarian tyrranny, or the tyranny of any large wealthy elites who may control government from inside or from outside via corporations or what have you (in the old days, the "political bosses" who were never themselves elected), then you must believe and conceive of the rights as outside human power to change. Inalienable birth rights, derived from Justice. Thomas Jefferson consciously tried to set forth ideals that would last centuries. But Ben Franklin put it most concisely when we said it was "commonly observed" in the colonies that they were not just fighting for their own freedom, but for the freedom of all humanity (Franklin said "mankind"). In addition, as Senator Henry Clay later echoed, the basic framework of rights was intended as a guide for "all posterity" -- literally forever into the future. Thus, in 1776 the battle was conceived quite commonly as for all the marbles: for all time and for the entire world. The Accomplishment: We the People stepped into the shoes of King George (and all possible kings and queens) as the sovereign, or ultimate and sole legitimate source of power. That idea of self-government, to put it in one word, is the core of the DEclaration of independence, and central to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well. People without a say in the governance of their community are, as Thomas Paine the architect of the American Revolution wrote, "rendered slaves" -- and a slave is defined broadly as someone whose opinion doesn't matter because they don't have a vote or suffrage. The Limitation of 1776: Heavily armed and war weary after the American Revolution, there was no appetite for an immediate Civil War on the issue of slavery, which ultimately did happen and cost over 650,000 American lives. Yet, elections continued even amidst the Civil War, as Pres. Lincoln insisted, since to call them off would be to give victory to the principle being fought against: Slavery/Tyranny. THey are ultimately aspects of the same exact thing, and the opposites of Liberty and Freedom. Resolving COntroversy over 1776: The continuing course of history from thereon is a dissection or legalistic struggle, if you will, over what "we" means in "We the People." From modern perspectives, it seems utterly obvious that "we" means everyone -- universal suffrage of adults (anyone capable of a free choice to wish to vote). There's no prerequisite to voting under universal suffrage under than the wish to be an elector. Any restriction on it, according to Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" by definition creates an Aristocracy, since a Republic or Democracy vests control and ultimate power in ALL the people, while an Aristocracy invests that power in a subset of all the people (creating a class structure, in effect). However divisive and long-standing the debates were on abolishing slavery, women's suffrage and abolishing Jim Crow through modern civil rights, there's never been any real debate that "We the People" are the only legitimate sovereigns. That's a universal human right. While someone may favor an authoritarian idea as "efficient" or whatever, they can't call a spade a spade. IN some way they always parade as democracy and freedom, even though they definitely are not. This is a concession and admission of illegitimacy of authoritarian or aristocratic rule of any kind. Thus, the controversy has never been about who's in charge, it's always the people, it has only been about subdividing "we" in "we the people" and/or disguising that subdivision so that an elite class or person can control. The conception of equality prohibits elite control, and is inherent in modern conceptions of democracy and republics. "One person one vote" is one way to sum this equality up. CONCLUSION: While some critique political leaders of centuries ago for not accomplishing the work of the centuries (literally) in one fell swoop in 1776 or so, it's not fair to expect perfection given the circumstances that were present, with an engrained slave economy of great wealth and rule by a king with no vote. HOWEVER, the founders all personally opposed slavery and believed it would end within their lifetimes, but they were off by a few decades, but right in the end. Jefferson's first bill introduced in Virginia was against slavery. But as "property" and since Jefferson was always in great debt due to his enormous public service, he couldn't let his "property" go free without banks foreclosing on his whole farm, and having the slaves returned as fugitive slaves, on order of the foreclosing bank, in order to preserve the value of the "collateral" -- the farm and house at Monticello. I wish to indulge in that brief defense of Jefferson's slaveholding in order to allow a due appreciation of the sweeping revolutionary scope of the SECOND PARAGRAPH ALONE of the declaration of Independence. That has since inspired countless revolutions around the world, and its basic ideas are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As President LIncoln later observed, most aptly, the concept of Equality was NO NECESSARY PART of achieving separation or "independence" from Great Britain. It was placed there, Lincoln expressly said "FOR FUTURE PURPOSES." I call Democracy, Equality and Freedom "guidestars." While we may never perfectly achieve all of them, like the stars in the sky, especially the North Star, if we do not constantly seek them out and sail our ships of state by them, we will TRULY be lost. Please note that in following the stars, we may not get to the stars, but we are not hypocrites if we are trying our best. Only those not trying their reasonable best are hypocrites, the rest are more like Olympic athletes in training for gold medals -- only one of thousands will reach the dream, but the rest are never thought of as hypocrites, they are more like heroes than hypocrites. So was Jefferson, a hero in his times. Every generation must use the guidestars to push things forward and adjust in THEIR time. Democracy makes a VERY wide tent. Jefferson used the term "Nature and Nature's God" to make a tent that agnostics and atheists as well as theists could read and think that the ultimate source of rights was sound to them. But despite the very wide tent, there are a few lines that can't ever be legitimately crossed, Those are the rights that are inalienable, and with every right is a correlative duty on everyone else's part to respect that right. Let's say we are theists, all, now. The inalienable rights, coming from God, are beyond any mortal power or superpower to change. Inalienable birthrights are akin to, but more expansive than, the international laws called jus cogens, which are binding without treaty and prohibit, even in time of war and no matter the excuse, the crimes of genocide, slavery, torture and inhumane treatment of war prisoners, to give some examples. Inalienable rights are possessed SIMPLY because we are HUMAN, and for no other reason, except the voting right which is triggered at age of majority when free will choices can be made and the child is legally no longer the ward or under control of the adults (which would spoil a ballot actually or potentially by intimidation, though parents wouldn't think of it quite that way, they'd call it "guidance" or "help") In addition to rights there must be ACCOUNTABILITY. Transparency is the bit too abstract term that is the informational prerequisite to accountability. What is secret or unknown is not accountable. Nobody can rationally approve of nontransparency to We the People, the bosses and sovereigns of our countries, except in extraordinary situations, perhaps of national security, but in all cases nontransparency always means unaccountability, and nobody can favor unaccountable government, especially since secrecy is an open invitation to fraud and worse. "Transparency" must be more than just information. If there are no remedies of control, like elections, referenda, and the like, mere information is like being stuck on the train tracks with clear windows (getting ALL information) but having no steering wheel, gas pedal or brake. Without CONTROL or "remedies" to use a legal term, one might wish for non-transparency, and have an instantaneous death on the train track instead of a long moment of absolute horror.... Currently, many shortfalls in governance are centered on the area of lack of control or remedies. Political promises in campaigns are unenforceable and widely not kept, or perceived as such, and there's no right of recall at least in the USA on the federal level. Thus, cynics can say that we elect a dictator for a four year term, since impeachment has seemed to be the sole remedy and also been apparently toothless. Whether or not one agrees with the cynical view, it is nevertheless true that the vindication of democracy, equality and freedom requires more control by the people. WIthout that, and to the extent of its absence, a de facto unaccountability of government takes its place, albeit for a term of years (presuming elections are fair, transparent, open and honest and not fraudulent either in the vote counts or in choices presented to the electorate). So there you have my answer, which is mostly only my framing or expression, but the ideas are timeless, the dream of the centuries. It's why for the most part people only risk their lives for democracy or religion: what's perceived as ideals noble and important enough to justify such a risk. (Family, however broadly or narrowly conceived, is another). The political theories are not mine per se but everyone's, albeit authored by many famous individuals, or rather expressed by them. The only thing I lay any personal claim to is the thoughts about the twin aspects of information and control comprising any meaningful accountability to the governed, and the analogy of the railroad track to explain why informational transparency, alone, is insufficient. Accountability is absolutely crucial if We the People are to remain the ultimate "boss" of our country (in our collective capacity, and literally sovereign only in our acts of voting, and not the rest of the year in which we must follow the rule of law, presuming it is just and not void, and thus are subjects of the law, except when voting in our sovereign capacity). In a sense, one need not draft ANYTHING for these most important rights, and indeed it is dangerous to do so to the extent the document is then wrongly perceived or construed as limiting the scope of the rights or forgetting their source. Check almost any state constitution within the USA and you will see it begin "Grateful to Almighty God for our Rights" (California) and so on. :) (CAPS are not yelling for me!) BUT THE FIRST STEP IS TO GET THOSE PRECIOUS RIGHTS OUT OF THE HANDS OF ANYONE WHO CAN TINKER WITH THEM. If one does draft something, one should ensure that it makes clear what the source of rights is, that government guarantees but never grants fundamental rights, and that putting them into written form is merely intended as a partial guide for the guidance of anyone in power, since power always corrupts, so they don't "forget" what their true task and trusteeship is. They hold only delegated power, and are accountable to the governed on a basis of equality. Even the most conservative have conceded the inalienable rights point (Hamilton, above) and even the most conservative in past centuries conceded the We the People are the only legitimate power. THEREFORE WE MUST WATCH OUT FOR FRAUD, theater instead of real politics, and "puppetmasters", because no one can OPENLY rule as a dictator or aristocracy. No matter what problems anyone may come up with in the right of the people as a whole to rule, rest assured that the problems in justifying aristocracy or dictatorship and the like are FAR greater in terms of being problematic. It's really simple: by unanimous consent, NOBODY has a better claim than we the people to be the ultimate power or sovereign. The thing to protect against is sophisticated fraud, since anyone who thinks they have better ideas than the average person is pretty likely to inflict them on everyone "for their own good" if not out of any hostile sense. Thus, in assessing and protecting against fraudulent governments and fraudulent elections (the primary accountability mechanism) the most important consideration of all is that open attack is not available, only covert or secret attack, pretending to be democracy, and thus that fraud in elections, especially since the government runs them and they determine the government's own composition and power, is an eternal and extremely great risk, since no human being can be trusted to determine their own power level. Thus, I'd concentrate on protecting elections and any other control mechanisms to make them utterly transparent. if elections are not 100% transparent, the fraud or undetected error will concentrate in the even 1% non-transparency, and a fraudulent freedom is or will eventually be created. (This is much like leaving 9 out of 10 doors locked, creating 10% nontransparency, by analogy. The burglar will always move to and find the unlocked door or window). Indeed, in elections, the unlocked door or window, so to speak, is published in the law books or the policies and freely available to any insider crook (the government equivalent of embezzlers) or outside crook, so it's like having 9 of ten doors locked but having a bright neon sign flashing that says "UNLOCKED DOOR HERE" and having that sign in every law library in the country and on the internet as well. NOT A GOOD IDEA, I don't think. Total transparency in all essential aspects of elections (except the personal casting of one vote) is absolutely essential, and inalienable, if one wishes to protect freedom, i.e. the right of we the people to control our own destinies and not be slaves and the individual rights to be free of majoritarian tyrannies of all kinds as well. All of the transparency elements of information and of voter control are inherent completely in the notion of the Accountability to the Governed (which should be all voters in a universal suffrage situation) I'd be happy to answer any questions or objections either on the email here or on the phone (contact information at very bottom). I've never really had any fundamental objections though, happy to say, but only folks who go on and ignore all of the above as if it didn't exist but refuse to say they oppose it. The key, really, is the "diffusion of education" as Jefferson put it, of the inalienable rights of all humanity. Yours democratically, Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Background to Introduction: I am a Juris Doctor in the USA, practiced election law and consumer protection law for twelve years before a very serious health crisis, and now am an independent legal scholar in the area of the law of democracy, published in the areas of political theorists of democracy, federal and state election law, Bush v. Gore, and scandals in state and local elections in extended legal encyclopedia articles as well as chapters in books on voting systems and elections. Before ceasing my sole law practice, I did both state and congressional election contest litigation, have a couple of published legal cases, served on the Board of Governors of my state Bar and by appointment of the Supreme Court of the state to the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education committee, with authority over what lawyers need to do to remain educated and competent in the law. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 17 01:03:22 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <573608.5136.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Paul,   Your work here is fantastic. To my humble mind and logic it is accurate and well reasoned. It is a good guide and capstone to any work in the field of human rights.    The partial conclusion that we must continually strive to reach which we cannot possibly acutally accomplish, could bring about a sense of futility, but any good builder knows that no matter how perfectly they build a house, it needs constant upkeep and vigiliance in remodeling and morphing to remain a home.   Your particulars and citations regarding the inalienableness and divine nature of human rights is well parsed.  But here we have logical divergence.  A divergence that should never interfere with our ability to work together yet independently.  A divergence that demands "respectful interface".  Seperate conclusions that require us to listen and not filter out what we do not want to hear.  If human rights are inalienable and of a nature predetermined and devine* then man cannot and will never be able to deny them.  If you place me in binds and turn me into a beaten and denied slave you still have not taken away my rights.  They live on regardless of your inhuman behavior.  But we both come to the same conclusion  -- what we are talking of here is the enforcement in the corporeal of our rights as men**.   * Devine here is used in a sense of "not of man, but more absolute. ** Men is used here in keeping with tradition. God can be a her, and founding fathers can be mothers. Obviously there can never be anything approaching sexism in human rights -- lest they be human wrongs. --- On Sun, 8/16/09, Paul Lehto wrote: From: Paul Lehto Subject: Re: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009, 11:41 PM On August 15, 2009 "Yehuda Katz" wrote: > Again... The Question is: > How should a Declaration (of Rights) be written(?); So that > it avoids the abuse-of-rights(by all), provides equal distribution of the Right's > Intended-Welfare, and equalizes the Control-of-Governing Agency (respective > the Right) ??? Hi, I'm Paul Lehto, and this question of rights in the law of democracy is sort of my primary area of interest as a writer and former election law attorney (details below in case anyone's interested).  I published in 2008 a lengthy legal encyclopedia article on the political theorists of democracy. My Short Answer (and I submit, ever so humbly, that the extended answer below is worth anyone's time that is interested in their own freedom or rights or of others' freedom and rights): The rights must be conceived and placed beyond the power of any group, government, individual or business to modify, even by amending a Constitution, and it must be a democracy of one person one vote equality, with universal suffrage, and recourse to the electorate on any issue deemed of importance to them (since they are in charge), by some reasonable procedure for invoking the rights of "We the People" Mid-Length Explanation or Foundation for the Above: Obviously, the only time anyone really needs a right is to do something somebody else doesn't want them to do -- or even that a majority doesn't want them to do, like speak to an unpopular issue. Karl Llewellyn said that the "law [itself] begins" here -- when two people disagree.  But certainly rights are critical against any power, including majoritiarian power expressed through a legislature, if universal human rights and freedoms are to be preserved.  The majority can't just silence the minority before or after it wins some legislative victory. If you follow what I'm saying above, and wish to resist tyranny of the majority as well as governmental tyranny and the tyranny of any other large concentration of power, then there must be a conception of rights that is beyond the ability of the majority, the government or any other power to legitimately alter or control.   Thus, such rights, while they can be violated, even violated for a very long time and egregiously so, NEVER go away or get waived.  They just get violated. Some call the above class of rights "inalienable" rights, others call them birthrights, still others call them nonderogable human rights, some call them natural law. Whatever they be termed, they are, as the most conservative founder of the USA put them (Alexander Hamilton, who at one point even offered up the idea of a king coming from Prussia!): "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments, or musty records.  The are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured BY MORTAL POWER." In other words, nothing on this earth can change the inalienable rights, they need not be, and often aren't, in Constitutions or "old parchments," they are derived from Reason Justice and the sense of right and wrong of our moral sense, which in turn are derived, depending on the preferences of who's the writer, either from Nature, Reason, Almighty God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and so on. The CRITICAL thing is that the rights are placed beyond "ANY MORTAL POWER'S" ability to LEGITIMATELY alter them. A constitution can be amended, at least by a supermajority and sometimes by a majority.  If inalienable rights are placed in constitutions, they function only as reminders, and there's a danger in putting them there because it may become perceived that they are political footballs subject to majoritarian decisions or tyranny, when this is not so. If one wishes to be free from majoritarian tyrranny, or the tyranny of any large wealthy elites who may control government from inside or from outside via corporations or what have you (in the old days, the "political bosses" who were never themselves elected), then you must believe and conceive of the rights as outside human power to change. Inalienable birth rights, derived from Justice. Thomas Jefferson consciously tried to set forth ideals that would last centuries.  But Ben Franklin put it most concisely when we said it was "commonly observed" in the colonies that they were not just fighting for their own freedom, but for the freedom of all humanity (Franklin said "mankind").    In addition, as Senator Henry Clay later echoed, the basic framework of rights was intended as a guide for "all posterity" -- literally forever into the future.  Thus, in 1776 the battle was conceived quite commonly as for all the marbles:  for all time and for the entire world. The Accomplishment:  We the People stepped into the shoes of King George (and all possible kings and queens) as the sovereign, or ultimate and sole legitimate source of power.  That idea of self-government, to put it in one word, is the core of the DEclaration of independence, and central to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well.  People without a say in the governance of their community are, as Thomas Paine the architect of the American Revolution wrote, "rendered slaves" -- and a slave is defined broadly as someone whose opinion doesn't matter because they don't have a vote or suffrage. The Limitation of 1776:  Heavily armed and war weary after the American Revolution, there was no appetite for an immediate Civil War on the issue of slavery, which ultimately did happen and cost over 650,000 American lives.   Yet, elections continued even amidst the Civil War, as Pres. Lincoln insisted, since to call them off would be to give victory to the principle being fought against: Slavery/Tyranny.  THey are ultimately aspects of the same exact thing, and the opposites of Liberty and Freedom. Resolving COntroversy over 1776:  The continuing course of history from thereon is a dissection or legalistic struggle, if you will, over what "we" means in "We the People."  From modern perspectives, it seems utterly obvious that "we" means everyone -- universal suffrage of adults (anyone capable of a free choice to wish to vote).  There's no prerequisite to voting under universal suffrage under than the wish to be an elector.  Any restriction on it, according to Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" by definition creates an Aristocracy, since a Republic or Democracy vests control and ultimate power in ALL the people, while an Aristocracy invests that power in a subset of all the people (creating a class structure, in effect).    However divisive and long-standing the debates were on abolishing slavery, women's suffrage and abolishing Jim Crow through modern civil rights, there's never been any real debate that "We the People" are the only legitimate sovereigns.  That's a universal human right.  While someone may favor an authoritarian idea as "efficient" or whatever, they can't call a spade a spade. IN some way they always parade as democracy and freedom, even though they definitely are not.  This is a concession and admission of illegitimacy of authoritarian or aristocratic rule of any kind.     Thus, the controversy has never been about who's in charge, it's always the people, it has only been about subdividing "we" in "we the people" and/or disguising that subdivision so that an elite class or person can control. The conception of equality prohibits elite control, and is inherent in modern conceptions of democracy and republics.  "One person one vote" is one way to sum this equality up. CONCLUSION:  While some critique political leaders of centuries ago for not accomplishing the work of the centuries (literally) in one fell swoop in 1776 or so, it's not fair to expect perfection given the circumstances that were present, with an engrained slave economy of great wealth and rule by a king with no vote.  HOWEVER, the founders all personally opposed slavery and believed it would end within their lifetimes, but they were off by a few decades, but right in the end. Jefferson's first bill introduced in Virginia was against slavery. But as "property" and since Jefferson was always in great debt due to his enormous public service, he couldn't let his "property" go free without banks foreclosing on his whole farm, and having the slaves returned as fugitive slaves, on order of the foreclosing bank, in order to preserve the value of the "collateral" -- the farm and house at Monticello. I wish to indulge in that brief defense of Jefferson's slaveholding in order to allow a due appreciation of the sweeping revolutionary scope of the SECOND PARAGRAPH ALONE of the declaration of Independence. That has since inspired countless revolutions around the world, and its basic ideas are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  As President LIncoln later observed, most aptly, the concept of Equality was NO NECESSARY PART of achieving separation or "independence" from Great Britain.  It was placed there, Lincoln expressly said "FOR FUTURE PURPOSES." I call Democracy, Equality and Freedom "guidestars."  While we may never perfectly achieve all of them, like the stars in the sky, especially the North Star, if we do not constantly seek them out and sail our ships of state by them, we will TRULY be lost.  Please note that in following the stars, we may not get to the stars, but we are not hypocrites if we are trying our best.  Only those not trying their reasonable best are hypocrites, the rest are more like Olympic athletes in training for gold medals -- only one of thousands will reach the dream, but the rest are never thought of as hypocrites, they are more like heroes than hypocrites.  So was Jefferson, a hero in his times. Every generation must use the guidestars to push things forward and adjust in THEIR time. Democracy makes a VERY wide tent. Jefferson used the term "Nature and Nature's God" to make a tent that agnostics and atheists as well as theists could read and think that the ultimate source of rights was sound to them. But despite the very wide tent, there are a few lines that can't ever be legitimately crossed, Those are the rights that are inalienable, and with every right is a correlative duty on everyone else's part to respect that right. Let's say we are theists, all, now.   The inalienable rights, coming from God, are beyond any mortal power or superpower to change. Inalienable birthrights are akin to, but more expansive than, the international laws called jus cogens, which are binding without treaty and prohibit, even in time of war and no matter the excuse, the crimes of genocide, slavery, torture and inhumane treatment of war prisoners, to give some examples. Inalienable rights are possessed SIMPLY because we are HUMAN, and for no other reason, except the voting right which is triggered at age of majority when free will choices can be made and the child is legally no longer the ward or under control of the adults (which would spoil a ballot actually or potentially by intimidation, though parents wouldn't think of it quite that way, they'd call it "guidance" or "help") In addition to rights there must be ACCOUNTABILITY. Transparency is the bit too abstract term that is the informational prerequisite to accountability.  What is secret or unknown is not accountable.  Nobody can rationally approve of nontransparency to We the People, the bosses and sovereigns of our countries, except in extraordinary situations, perhaps of national security, but in all cases nontransparency always means unaccountability, and nobody can favor unaccountable government, especially since secrecy is an open invitation to fraud and worse. "Transparency" must be more than just information.  If there are no remedies of control, like elections, referenda, and the like, mere information is like being stuck on the train tracks with clear windows (getting ALL information) but having no steering wheel, gas pedal or brake.  Without CONTROL or "remedies" to use a legal term, one might wish for non-transparency, and have an instantaneous death on the train track instead of a long moment of absolute horror.... Currently, many shortfalls in governance are centered on the area of lack of control or remedies.  Political promises in campaigns are unenforceable and widely not kept, or perceived as such, and there's no right of recall at least in the USA on the federal level.  Thus, cynics can say that we elect a dictator for a four year term, since impeachment has seemed to be the sole remedy and also been apparently toothless.  Whether or not one agrees with the cynical view, it is nevertheless true that the vindication of democracy, equality and freedom requires more control by the people.  WIthout that, and to the extent of its absence, a de facto unaccountability of government takes its place, albeit for a term of years (presuming elections are fair, transparent, open and honest and not fraudulent either in the vote counts or in choices presented to the electorate). So there you have my answer, which is mostly only my framing or expression, but the ideas are timeless, the dream of the centuries. It's why for the most part people only risk their lives for democracy or religion: what's perceived as ideals noble and important enough to justify such a risk. (Family, however broadly or narrowly conceived, is another).  The political theories are not mine per se but everyone's, albeit authored by many famous individuals, or rather expressed by them.  The only thing I lay any personal claim to is the thoughts about the twin aspects of information and control comprising any meaningful accountability to the governed, and the analogy of the railroad track to explain why informational transparency, alone, is insufficient. Accountability is absolutely crucial if We the People are to remain the ultimate "boss" of our country (in our collective capacity, and literally sovereign only in our acts of voting, and not the rest of the year in which we must follow the rule of law, presuming it is just and not void, and thus are subjects of the law, except when voting in our sovereign capacity). In a sense, one need not draft ANYTHING for these most important rights, and indeed it is dangerous to do so to the extent the document is then wrongly perceived or construed as limiting the scope of the rights or forgetting their source.  Check almost any state constitution within the USA and  you will see it begin "Grateful to Almighty God for our Rights" (California) and so on. :)   (CAPS are not yelling for me!)  BUT THE FIRST STEP IS TO GET THOSE PRECIOUS RIGHTS OUT OF THE HANDS OF ANYONE WHO CAN TINKER WITH THEM.  If one does draft something, one should ensure that it makes clear what the source of rights is, that government guarantees but never grants fundamental rights, and that putting them into written form is merely intended as a partial guide for the guidance of anyone in power, since power always corrupts, so they don't "forget" what their true task and trusteeship is.  They hold only delegated power, and are accountable to the governed on a basis of equality. Even the most conservative have conceded the inalienable rights point (Hamilton, above) and even the most conservative in past centuries conceded the We the People are the only legitimate power.  THEREFORE WE MUST WATCH OUT FOR FRAUD, theater instead of real politics, and "puppetmasters", because no one can OPENLY rule as a dictator or aristocracy. No matter what problems anyone may come up with in the right of the people as a whole to rule, rest assured that the problems in justifying aristocracy or dictatorship and the like are FAR greater in terms of being problematic.   It's really simple: by unanimous consent, NOBODY has a better claim than we the people to be the ultimate power or sovereign.  The thing to protect against is sophisticated fraud, since anyone who thinks they have better ideas than the average person is pretty likely to inflict them on everyone "for their own good" if not out of any hostile sense.  Thus, in assessing and protecting against fraudulent governments and fraudulent elections (the primary accountability mechanism) the most important consideration of all is that open attack is not available, only covert or secret attack, pretending to be democracy, and thus that fraud in elections, especially since the government runs them and they determine the government's own composition and power, is an eternal and extremely great risk, since no human being can be trusted to determine their own power level.   Thus, I'd concentrate on protecting elections and any other control mechanisms to make them utterly transparent. if elections are not 100% transparent, the fraud or undetected error will concentrate in the even 1% non-transparency, and a fraudulent freedom is or will eventually be created. (This is much like leaving 9 out of 10 doors locked, creating 10% nontransparency, by analogy. The burglar will always move to and find the unlocked door or window). Indeed, in elections, the unlocked door or window, so to speak, is published in the law books or the policies and freely available to any insider crook (the government equivalent of embezzlers) or outside crook, so it's like having 9 of ten doors locked but having a bright neon sign flashing that says "UNLOCKED DOOR HERE" and having that sign in every law library in the country and on the internet as well.   NOT A GOOD IDEA, I don't think. Total transparency in all essential aspects of elections (except the personal casting of one vote) is absolutely essential,  and inalienable, if one wishes to protect freedom, i.e. the right of we the people to control our own destinies and not be slaves and the individual rights to be free of majoritarian tyrannies of all kinds as well.  All of the transparency elements of information and of voter control are inherent completely in the notion of the Accountability to the Governed (which should be all voters in a universal suffrage situation) I'd be happy to answer any questions or objections either on the email here or on the phone (contact information at very bottom). I've never really had any fundamental objections though, happy to say, but only folks who go on and ignore all of the above as if it didn't exist but refuse to say they oppose it. The key, really, is the "diffusion of education" as Jefferson put it, of the inalienable rights of all humanity. Yours democratically, Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Background to Introduction:  I am a Juris Doctor in the USA, practiced election law and consumer protection law for twelve years before a very serious health crisis, and now am an independent legal scholar in the area of the law of democracy, published in the areas of political theorists of democracy, federal and state election law, Bush v. Gore, and scandals in state and local elections in extended legal encyclopedia articles as well as chapters in books on voting systems and elections. Before ceasing my sole law practice, I did both state and congressional election contest litigation, have a couple of published legal cases, served on the Board of Governors of my state Bar and by appointment of the Supreme Court of the state to the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education committee, with authority over what lawyers need to do to remain educated and competent in the law. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Aug 17 01:30:11 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a In-Reply-To: 76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Thank you Paul, the response was excellent, and causes me to ask a few questions (non-Socratic). Embracing your terms of "inalienable", when one is crafting a Constitution (K), then the placement of text that pertains to 'defined human rights' would be within in the document's body (unalterable), and any Amendments to that (K) are attached thereafter. Or, are you saying that your (K) can not be amended? - Regarding the 'Rights' are they 'Defensive Rights' or 'Entitlement Rights', is there a distinction among the Rights? Example 'Defensive Rights': 2nd Amendment - The Right to bare Arms, Example 'Entitlement Rights': The Right to Vote. - Could you please expand your discussion in the area of economics of the declared Rights. (How would your (K) fund the Entitlements?) -- Sorry I have run late today, its 10pm Sunday here in California, and I have to comply with my own cannon, regarding the Mail list hours. I didn't want you to wait until Friday for a response. You answered a few other questions that we have been stymied with. Take your time, I'm looking forward to reading about Entitlement Economics next Friday. Thnx ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anja at cis-india.org Mon Aug 17 02:33:11 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:03:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> Message-ID: <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> Hi Avri and all, On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 14:56 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > Having submitted it by the deadline, I am sure there will no problem > submitting an update once there has been a chance to collect the names > of all of those who wish to sign on to the statement. That's a good suggestion. I'm happy to collect signatures of all those who email the list or me before, say, Friday, and to send the updated list of signatories to the IGF Secretariat then. So do please still express your support if you would like to join this effort. Anja > 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 03:36:01 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:36:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and Principles" [was: deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda] Message-ID: Hi Anja Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious omission! PLEASE ADD MY NAME! As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, as a result, many are not keeping up. The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is that people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF 2009". However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet rights! I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in the hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. Keep up the good efforts, Regards, Rui 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs > Dear all, > > As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > some of the wording of the April submission) > > For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > and Society, Bangalore. > > I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > Governance issues. > > Anja > > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 04:10:52 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric, Why not save us all the guess work and tell us once and for all that you and others of your coterie get paid (and how much) by ICANN/ US Dept to work against common civil society interests in the free world? The internet reveals much including past ICANN inbreeding and other associations. You would do better to dress up in a wolf costume trying to convince us that you are Little Red Riding Hood! What is your issue now with "America" (sic [there is no such thing! - America or the Americas is a/ are continents that comprise A NUMBER OF countries, not just the US of A])? Rui 2009/8/16 Eric Dierker > I am concerned that with the JPA significant dates edging ever closer, this > type of anti American revisionist history will become more prevalant. Let us > hope not. Let us begin by making it known that innaccuracies such as this > will be challenged. > > America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not > run our rig that way. Doctrines are a statement of intention by executives > in governance, they are not law or treaty. The Monroe Doctrine is a > statement against a *Holy Alliance* that threatened to reinstate > colonialism. It was a statement to our lawmakers how the executive planned > on dealing with others. > > All nations are allowed to make moves to secure their borders. Internet > governance must accept and enjoy the cultural integrity that goes along with > this forever necessity. All nations should feel confident and indeed plan > for future independence regarding telecommunications. If the United States > can effectively maintain and control access to information for other > countries, it would be incumbent upon those countries to change that > reliance. > > > > --- On *Sun, 7/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy *wrote: > > > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" > Cc: "Carlton Samuels" , ""Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang"" > Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:10 PM > > Hello All, > > President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign > political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression > requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. > > Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on > notice that the *US has cyberturf,* and that we will defend our turf" It > would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that > would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to > the whole world. What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in > that sense. > > Why would Oracle say this? > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini > > > >> Carlton >> I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be >> naïve on this. >> >> *Vanda Scartezini* >> *POLO Consultores Associados* >> *& IT Trend* >> *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* >> *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.* >> *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* >> *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** >> >> *From:* carlton.samuels at gmail.com[mailto: >> carlton.samuels at gmail.com] >> *On Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; >> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? >> >> >> Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can >> attest to that. >> >> Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while >> we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in >> the space as merely collateral damage. >> >> The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either >> cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign >> explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of >> the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the >> latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered >> "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral >> extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, >> mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never >> recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly >> does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central >> America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even >> mention Haiti. >> >> Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre >> ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we >> say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and >> its impact on the future. >> >> History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! >> >> Carlton Samuels >> 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> > >> Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where >> she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended >> version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. >> >> If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the >> contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, >> that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, >> what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the >> diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look >> rather different. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Mon Aug 17 05:53:44 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:53:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline / Rights and Principles meeting In-Reply-To: <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215BB1@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Firstly, thanks Anja for pulling this together at such short notice, and please do add my name to the list. Secondly, the Internet Rights and Principles coalition is having a meeting in Geneva before the European Dialogue on Internet Governance on Sunday 13th September. This will provide an opportunity to discuss what we do mean by "internet rights and principles", and work out strategies for incorporating rights standards and considerations in to internet governance. The meeting is open to all, so please do come along. Exact venue still tbc, but let me know if you're interested and we can keep you in the loop. We'll also be facilitating remote participation. We'll be feeding the outcomes of the meeting into the IGF preparation meetings, and have been promised space within the programme to do that by Markus. So please do come along, in person or virtually, and hopefully we can make some progress in this field. The agenda is here - http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/166. Feel free to edit and add ideas and suggestions. All the best, Lisa _________________________________________________________ Lisa Horner Head of Research & Policy Global Partners and Associates 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK Office: + 44 207 239 8251  Mobile: +44 7867 795859 lisa at global-partners.co.uk  www.global-partners.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 17 August 2009 07:33 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Hi Avri and all, On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 14:56 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > Having submitted it by the deadline, I am sure there will no problem > submitting an update once there has been a chance to collect the names > of all of those who wish to sign on to the statement. That's a good suggestion. I'm happy to collect signatures of all those who email the list or me before, say, Friday, and to send the updated list of signatories to the IGF Secretariat then. So do please still express your support if you would like to join this effort. Anja > 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4340 (20090816) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4341 (20090817) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4341 (20090817) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 07:06:48 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:06:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250251605.23776.120.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <1250320850.25197.12.camel@cis5-laptop> <4A885380.9060207@rits.org.br> <4028AA4F-6FC6-4960-8438-213EADEFEEF6@acm.org> <1250490791.4061.26.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: I would please - Deirdre Williams. Thank you for the opportunity. Deirdre 2009/8/17 Anja Kovacs : ... > So do please still express your support if you would like to join this > effort. > > Anja > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From skorpio at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 08:36:50 2009 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:36:50 -0600 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also add my name please. Thanks, Jaco A. 2009/8/17, Rui Correia : > Hi Anja > > Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious > omission! > > PLEASE ADD MY NAME! > > As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, as a > result, many are not keeping up. > > The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is that > people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and > therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF 2009". > However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet > rights! > > I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in the > hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. > > Keep up the good efforts, > > Regards, > > Rui > > > > 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs > >> Dear all, >> >> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >> some of the wording of the April submission) >> >> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >> and Society, Bangalore. >> >> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >> Governance issues. >> >> Anja >> >> >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> Fellow >> Centre for Internet and Society >> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >> www.cis-india.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 >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil Jaco Aizenman L. Presidente Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF ------------------------ My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) XDI Board member - www.xdi.org Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 Costa Rica What is an i-name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 08:40:58 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:40:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Add my name, I am signatory All the best Aaron On 8/17/09, Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Also add my name please. > > Thanks, > > Jaco A. > > 2009/8/17, Rui Correia : >> Hi Anja >> >> Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious >> omission! >> >> PLEASE ADD MY NAME! >> >> As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, as >> a >> result, many are not keeping up. >> >> The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is that >> people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and >> therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF >> 2009". >> However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet >> rights! >> >> I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in the >> hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. >> >> Keep up the good efforts, >> >> Regards, >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft >>> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the >>> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in >>> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet >>> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main >>> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC >>> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. >>> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a >>> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least >>> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to >>> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use >>> some of the wording of the April submission) >>> >>> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I >>> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet >>> and Society, Bangalore. >>> >>> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet >>> Governance issues. >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> Fellow >>> Centre for Internet and Society >>> T: +91 80 4092 6283 >>> www.cis-india.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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> > > -- > Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil > > Jaco Aizenman L. > Presidente > Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF > ------------------------ > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 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 siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Mon Aug 17 09:01:08 2009 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:01:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda In-Reply-To: <584449.51887.qm@web45202.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4A85F70F.5040009@gmail.com> <584449.51887.qm@web45202.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi all, If it is not too late (I was out of access for the last two weeks), please, also add my name as an individual Best Siranush Vardanyan Armenia Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:26:31 -0700 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; gpaque at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda Hi Ginger, Please add my name as well ! I was in Geneva and in Tunisia in 2003 and( in Tunisia2005) when the WSIS Declaration of Principles was made. Dina Hovakmian --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Aug. 15 deadline for inputs on IGF 2009 agenda To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anja Kovacs" Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:45 PM Hi Anja, I agree with your concern. However, I do not think there is time for the list to reach consensus on a substantive statement. If you write a statement, could you post it to the list, so that those who want to sign with you can email you directly, so you can add names before you send it in? Best, Ginger Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use some of the wording of the April submission) For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet Governance issues. Anja Dr.. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr..org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance _________________________________________________________________ Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 09:02:21 2009 From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:02:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <672f471f0908170602x31d0ed33k661ddab80716848c@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Please add my name too. Kwasi On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Also add my name please. > > Thanks, > > Jaco A. > > 2009/8/17, Rui Correia : > > Hi Anja > > > > Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious > > omission! > > > > PLEASE ADD MY NAME! > > > > As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, > as a > > result, many are not keeping up. > > > > The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is > that > > people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and > > therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF > 2009". > > However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet > > rights! > > > > I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in > the > > hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. > > > > Keep up the good efforts, > > > > Regards, > > > > Rui > > > > > > > > 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > >> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > >> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > >> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > >> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > >> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > >> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > >> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > >> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > >> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > >> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > >> some of the wording of the April submission) > >> > >> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > >> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > >> and Society, Bangalore. > >> > >> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > >> Governance issues. > >> > >> Anja > >> > >> > >> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >> Fellow > >> Centre for Internet and Society > >> T: +91 80 4092 6283 > >> www.cis-india.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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > > 2 Cutten St > > Horison > > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > > South Africa > > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > > _______________ > > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- > Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil > > Jaco Aizenman L. > Presidente > Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF > ------------------------ > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-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 > -- We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action. -- Frank Tibolt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 17 09:28:05 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <163223.39752.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Well I can see why some here really want to know who they are dealing with on this list. If you knew who I was, you would not make such a funny statement.  Clearly as, Avri can attest, I would have to dress up in little red riding hoods clothing in order to change my identity.  I have long been an advocate for dotcommoner rights within and without the ICANN structure.  You can ask Joe, there is this little thing of the TLDA and my very .lowtech Interest in that arena. I have been accused of working for Countries other than the USA and staunchly advocating that they are wholly independent of ICANN and more importantly the USA. If you have ever heard of a genre of arguments that entail the Internet rights of Saigon ShoeShine boys you would no my free radicals.   As for America.  I have travelled way too much to fall for that game.  In Canada we citizens from the US are mostly referred to as Americans. As for Mexico it is Norte Americanos and in all Asia it is Americans. In Europe it is mostly derogatory or actually much more regional in conversation, like LA or NY or near the Grand Canyon or New Orleans. If I say I am from the US, people get that but -- Mexico is also an United States in America soo???   I do not consider your post as a personal attack. I am not insulted but I would suggest that for others who have not been in the ICANN and cyber wars since the 90s you tone down your direct insults. --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 8:10 AM Eric, Why not save us all the guess work and tell us once and for all that you and others of your coterie get paid (and how much) by ICANN/ US Dept to work against common civil society interests in the free world? The internet reveals much including past ICANN inbreeding and other associations. You would do better to dress up in a wolf costume trying to convince us that you are Little Red Riding Hood! What is your issue now with "America" (sic [there is no such thing! - America or the Americas is a/ are continents that comprise A NUMBER OF countries, not just the US of A])?   Rui 2009/8/16 Eric Dierker I am concerned that with the JPA significant dates edging ever closer, this type of anti American revisionist history will become more prevalant. Let us hope not. Let us begin by making it known that innaccuracies such as this will be challenged.   America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not run our rig that way.  Doctrines are a statement of intention by executives in governance, they are not law or treaty.  The Monroe Doctrine is a statement against a Holy Alliance that threatened to reinstate colonialism.  It was a statement to our lawmakers how the executive planned on dealing with others.   All nations are allowed to make moves to secure their borders.  Internet governance must accept and enjoy the cultural integrity that goes along with this forever necessity.  All nations should feel confident and indeed plan for future independence regarding telecommunications.  If the United States can effectively maintain and control access to information for other countries, it would be incumbent upon those countries to change that reliance.   --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" Cc: "Carlton Samuels" , ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:10 PM Hello All, President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on notice that the US has cyberturf, and that we will defend our turf" It would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to the whole world.  What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in that sense. Why would Oracle say this? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini Carlton  I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be naïve on this.    Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados &  IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464   From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com [mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?   Um, see, history matters!  Those of us on the periphery of empire can attest to that. Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson.  And while we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in the space as merely collateral damage. The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either cybersecurity or Internet governance.  I shall take the most benign explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central America and other implementing tools of this doctrine.   I won't even mention Haiti.   Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and its impact on the future. History is not bunk.  And culture is a helluva thing! Carlton Samuels 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look rather different. Wolfgang http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 17 09:31:12 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <537734.4367.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please take a hard look at the concepts of "Amended" and "Amendment to".   In drafting codicils and wills and complaints in court these are drastically different. --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 5:30 AM Thank you Paul, the response was excellent, and causes me to ask a few questions (non-Socratic). Embracing your terms of "inalienable", when one is crafting a Constitution (K), then the placement of text that pertains to 'defined human rights' would be within in the document's body (unalterable), and any Amendments to that (K) are attached thereafter. Or, are you saying that your (K) can not be amended? - Regarding the 'Rights' are they 'Defensive Rights' or 'Entitlement Rights', is there a distinction among the Rights? Example 'Defensive Rights': 2nd Amendment - The Right to bare Arms, Example 'Entitlement Rights': The Right to Vote. - Could you please expand your discussion in the area of economics of the declared Rights. (How would your (K) fund the Entitlements?) -- Sorry I have run late today, its 10pm Sunday here in California, and I have to comply with my own cannon, regarding the Mail list hours. I didn't want you to wait until Friday for a response. You answered a few other questions that we have been stymied with. Take your time, I'm looking forward to reading about Entitlement Economics next Friday. Thnx ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Aug 17 10:03:49 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:03:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ed74050908170703x2a278617t29a0ceeba13a126a@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja, Thanks to the subject line - I wrote before of the topic and was a discussant last year but yes please also be sure to add my name too. Best wishes, Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff *Respectful Interfaces* Programme - Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N. On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Jaco Aizenman wrote: > Also add my name please. > > Thanks, > > Jaco A. > > 2009/8/17, Rui Correia : > > Hi Anja > > > > Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious > > omission! > > > > PLEASE ADD MY NAME! > > > > As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, > as a > > result, many are not keeping up. > > > > The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is > that > > people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and > > therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF > 2009". > > However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet > > rights! > > > > I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in > the > > hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. > > > > Keep up the good efforts, > > > > Regards, > > > > Rui > > > > > > > > 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > >> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > >> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > >> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > >> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > >> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > >> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > >> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > >> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > >> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > >> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > >> some of the wording of the April submission) > >> > >> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > >> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > >> and Society, Bangalore. > >> > >> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > >> Governance issues. > >> > >> Anja > >> > >> > >> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >> Fellow > >> Centre for Internet and Society > >> T: +91 80 4092 6283 > >> www.cis-india.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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > > 2 Cutten St > > Horison > > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > > South Africa > > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > > _______________ > > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- > Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil > > Jaco Aizenman L. > Presidente > Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF > ------------------------ > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 10:25:41 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:25:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] ADD MY NAME to defend "Internet Rights and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very important and I wish also to be added. Baudouin 2009/8/17 Jaco Aizenman > Also add my name please. > > Thanks, > > Jaco A. > > 2009/8/17, Rui Correia : > > Hi Anja > > > > Thanks for doing this and for the heads up, picking up on this serious > > omission! > > > > PLEASE ADD MY NAME! > > > > As you will know, the troll wars have been turning a lot of people off, > as a > > result, many are not keeping up. > > > > The result/ consequence (i.e. mission accomplished for the trolls) is > that > > people feel unqualified to comment because they have not kept up and > > therefore will not express themselves on "deadline for inputs on IGF > 2009". > > However, we CAN ALL sign up against suppression/ omission of internet > > rights! > > > > I've thus taken the liberty to change the subject line of the email in > the > > hope of alerting those in tedium of the troll wars. > > > > Keep up the good efforts, > > > > Regards, > > > > Rui > > > > > > > > 2009/8/14 Anja Kovacs > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> As Ginger noted, tomorrow is the last day for comments on the Draft > >> Programme Paper. What continues to strike me as I read this paper is the > >> complete absence of attention for Internet rights and principles - in > >> fact the word 'rights' is not mentioned even once - despite Internet > >> rights and principles being raised as a theme or a topic for a main > >> session repeatedly by a range of players (including the IGC, the IRP DC > >> and the Gender DC) during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations. > >> Although I realise that there is little chance of it being included as a > >> main session at this point, I think it is important for us to at least > >> comment on this glaring absence. Would it be possible for the IGC to > >> express, by tomorrow, its disappointment in this regard? (we could use > >> some of the wording of the April submission) > >> > >> For those of you with whom I have had the pleasure to interact before, I > >> also would like to share that I have now joined the Centre for Internet > >> and Society, Bangalore. > >> > >> I look forward to continuing to engage with you all on Internet > >> Governance issues. > >> > >> Anja > >> > >> > >> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >> Fellow > >> Centre for Internet and Society > >> T: +91 80 4092 6283 > >> www.cis-india.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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > Rui Correia > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > > 2 Cutten St > > Horison > > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > > South Africa > > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > > _______________ > > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- > Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil > > Jaco Aizenman L. > Presidente > Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF > ------------------------ > My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco) > XDI Board member - www.xdi.org > Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570 > Costa Rica > > What is an i-name? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-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 > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:b.schombe at gmail.com http://akimambo.unblog.fr http://educticafrique.ning.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 17 11:45:53 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:45:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com> References: <76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220B40@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I agree with this part of your statement. I do not think that a religious grounding for rights is required, however. We should not get into that here, it's outside the scope of this list. > Obviously, the only time anyone really needs a right is to do > something somebody else doesn't want them to do -- or even that a > majority doesn't want them to do, like speak to an unpopular issue. > [snip] > If you follow what I'm saying above, and wish to resist tyranny of the > majority as well as governmental tyranny and the tyranny of any other > large concentration of power, then there must be a conception of > rights that is beyond the ability of the majority, the government or > any other power to legitimately alter or control. Thus, such rights, > while they can be violated, even violated for a very long time and > egregiously so, NEVER go away or get waived. They just get violated. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 13:20:30 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:20:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220B40@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <76f819dd0908161641t64842fe1g8338f37cc2ad1499@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B220B40@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <76f819dd0908171020t63620d26medc808dee67cd2e0@mail.gmail.com> I agree with Milton Mueller "that a religious grounding for rights" is not required. That is why I specifically alluded to Jefferson's democracy "tent" including both atheists and theists through the use of his phrase "Nature and Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence. It was, and is, an unusual formulation, but deliberately so, so that we could have respectful interface (as Eric Dierker just put it) between both the religious and the agnostic or atheist (as the case may be). I believe that we concur, if not agree, on the inclusion of all regardless of their position on matters of spirituality, so we need not debate that on this list. However, the nature of governance and the source of rights is the very foundation of governance, so a strong argument could be made for list relevance. But again, the way it is formulated, with twin alternatives to satisfy everyone, means that it need not be discussed, so we reach the same result regardless. By selecting the one part that you agree with, does Milton Mueller mean to suggest that he disagrees with or is unsure of the parts concerning transparency and accountability (which are two sides of the same coin)? I was not sure. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 8/17/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I agree with this part of your statement. I do not think that a religious > grounding for rights is required, however. We should not get into that here, > it's outside the scope of this list. > >> Obviously, the only time anyone really needs a right is to do >> something somebody else doesn't want them to do -- or even that a >> majority doesn't want them to do, like speak to an unpopular issue. > >> [snip] >> If you follow what I'm saying above, and wish to resist tyranny of the >> majority as well as governmental tyranny and the tyranny of any other >> large concentration of power, then there must be a conception of >> rights that is beyond the ability of the majority, the government or >> any other power to legitimately alter or control. Thus, such rights, >> while they can be violated, even violated for a very long time and >> egregiously so, NEVER go away or get waived. They just get violated. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Mon Aug 17 13:25:07 2009 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:25:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] comment on draft programme paper now submitted In-Reply-To: <1250416084.3386.43.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1250416084.3386.43.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: >The comment on the draft programme paper has now been submitted to >the IGF Secretariat, as below. > >Thank you to all those who have extended their support at such short >notice. I have been tremendously happy to see how many people have >gotten back on this within only slightly more than 24 hours - it's >encouraging to see what potential this list continues to have, >despite recent events :) please add my name Stefano > >Best wishes, >Anja > > >Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009 > > > >We, the undersigned would like to express our surprise and >disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained >as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this >topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main >session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open >Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft >Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and >Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS >Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, >explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of >Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these >commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning >is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around >the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We >recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. > > >Signatories: > >Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore >IP Justice > >Jacques Berleur >Ginger Paque >Fouad Bajwa >Milton L Mueller >Willie Currie, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >Michael Gurstein >Jeanette Hofmann >Eric Dierker >Jeffrey A Williams >Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC >Philippines >Ian Peter >Trace F. Hackshaw >Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles >Lee W McKnight >Jeremy Malcolm >Tapani Tarvainen > > > > >Dr. Anja Kovacs >Fellow >Centre for Internet and Society >T: +91 80 4092 6283 >www.cis-india.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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 17 16:14:10 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:14:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: References: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0908171314i16f334bfva359dc3163e28b67@mail.gmail.com> One of the more powerful things in defense of the expansion of human freedom and equality is one single paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. (paragraph 2). Its concepts have been -- successfully -- used to abolish chattel slavery, cited endlessly by President Lincoln (whose fame Tolstoy said would last a thousand years or more), relied upon by women suffragists, who simply changed the pronouns in the document to specify that "she" was included in "mankind", and is the core of Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream" speech. The only time the USA has made historical progress has been in reliance on that document. It's also spread worldwide and been cited in countless reform and revolutionary movements from the French Revolution to the NOrth Vietnamese and everything in between. A defense of the IDEALS of American history, what it is supposed to be, is not a defense of the shortfalls of those ideals, nor does it indicate selling out to anyone. IN fact, at any given point in history about the most progressive thing one can do is go straight back to the roots of American history. At least here in the USA, and in Finland where my wife comes from, it's powerful and basically uncontestable, but very different from jingoistic talk. On 8/17/09, Rui Correia wrote: > Eric, > > Why not save us all the guess work and tell us once and for all that you and > others of your coterie get paid (and how much) by ICANN/ US Dept to work > against common civil society interests in the free world? The internet > reveals much including past ICANN inbreeding and other associations. You > would do better to dress up in a wolf costume trying to convince us that you > are Little Red Riding Hood! > > What is your issue now with "America" (sic [there is no such thing! - > America or the Americas is a/ are continents that comprise A NUMBER OF > countries, not just the US of A])? > > > > Rui > > 2009/8/16 Eric Dierker > >> I am concerned that with the JPA significant dates edging ever closer, >> this >> type of anti American revisionist history will become more prevalant. Let >> us >> hope not. Let us begin by making it known that innaccuracies such as this >> will be challenged. >> >> America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not >> run our rig that way. Doctrines are a statement of intention by >> executives >> in governance, they are not law or treaty. The Monroe Doctrine is a >> statement against a *Holy Alliance* that threatened to reinstate >> colonialism. It was a statement to our lawmakers how the executive >> planned >> on dealing with others. >> >> All nations are allowed to make moves to secure their borders. Internet >> governance must accept and enjoy the cultural integrity that goes along >> with >> this forever necessity. All nations should feel confident and indeed plan >> for future independence regarding telecommunications. If the United >> States >> can effectively maintain and control access to information for other >> countries, it would be incumbent upon those countries to change that >> reliance. >> >> >> >> --- On *Sun, 7/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> *wrote: >> >> >> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" >> Cc: "Carlton Samuels" , ""Kleinwächter, >> Wolfgang"" >> Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:10 PM >> >> Hello All, >> >> President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign >> political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression >> requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. >> >> Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on >> notice that the *US has cyberturf,* and that we will defend our turf" It >> would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that >> would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to >> the whole world. What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in >> that sense. >> >> Why would Oracle say this? >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini >> >> > >> >>> Carlton >>> I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be >>> naïve on this. >>> >>> *Vanda Scartezini* >>> *POLO Consultores Associados* >>> *& IT Trend* >>> *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* >>> *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.* >>> *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* >>> *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** >>> >>> *From:* >>> carlton.samuels at gmail.com[mailto: >>> carlton.samuels at gmail.com] >>> *On Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM >>> *To:* >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org; >>> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? >>> >>> >>> Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can >>> attest to that. >>> >>> Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while >>> we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors >>> in >>> the space as merely collateral damage. >>> >>> The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either >>> cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign >>> explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact >>> of >>> the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just >>> the >>> latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered >>> "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral >>> extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic >>> institutions, >>> mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were >>> never >>> recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She >>> clearly >>> does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central >>> America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even >>> mention Haiti. >>> >>> Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre >>> ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall >>> we >>> say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history >>> and >>> its impact on the future. >>> >>> History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! >>> >>> Carlton Samuels >>> 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>> > >>> Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where >>> she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an >>> extended >>> version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. >>> >>> If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the >>> contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk >>> is, >>> that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, >>> what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the >>> diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could >>> look >>> rather different. >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >> >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 >> >> > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Aug 17 18:16:54 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:16:54 +1000 Subject: [governance] Sharm workshops - status Message-ID: Attached a spreadsheet received with current status of various workshops for Sharm. One of our proposals is currently ³yellow² but has been updated ­ however overall comments on how this is shaping up would be useful, particularly for anyone attending the September consultation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Sharm Workshop Grading Sheet edited 05.xls Type: application/x-msexcel Size: 501760 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 17 19:57:59 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Religion In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0908171020t63620d26medc808dee67cd2e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8144.92359.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (I am going to be sarcastic and a bit caustic -- please, this is a very delicate issue and very important to get right. I want to make light of my position so you may feel comfortable with your response.  We all must be tolerant of others religious opinions even though mine are the only right ones)       How nice you two.  Leave it to religions to work out their differences.  "Outside the Scope" was the mantra of ICANN for years.  This mantra would cut off all debate and the ICANN would just go right ahead in that direction.  Very tidy of both of you to not recognize that via the internet millions are being oppressed in their right to religious freedom.  If you do not believe me look at Iran, Honduras, Vietnam, Tibet, China.  Some of it occurs by the religions, Honduras and Iran, some of it happens against the religions, Vietnam, China, Tibet. In others by the religions, Honduras, Iran & Ireland. (totally different methods)   Perhaps one of you would like to ring them up over at Article 2 of the UNs declaration.  I am sure that they would like to know that Religious Freedom is outside of the scope of an IGF work list. And while you are at it check out these three terms in Websters' new word store; catholicism -- do not get destracted by Catholicism, Universal -- do not get distracted by Karl Sabins universe, Inalienable -- do not get destracted by the X-files.   Shalom aleichem & Yah-Tah-Hey-Si-Kess (unlike Joe's Latin I leave these intact for googling) Shalom I have learned in search of western ancients, Yah tah I have learned in search of really western ancients - the Anazazi. Res Ipsa Loquitor.     --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Paul Lehto wrote: From: Paul Lehto Subject: Re: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of To: "Milton L Mueller" Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 5:20 PM I agree with Milton Mueller "that a religious grounding for rights" is not required.  That is why I specifically alluded to Jefferson's democracy "tent" including both atheists and theists through the use of his phrase "Nature and Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence.  It was, and is, an unusual formulation, but deliberately so, so that we could have respectful interface (as Eric Dierker just put it) between both the religious and the agnostic or atheist (as the case may be). I believe that we concur, if not agree, on the inclusion of all regardless of their position on matters of spirituality, so we need not debate that on this list.  However, the nature of governance and the source of rights is the very foundation of governance, so a strong argument could be made for list relevance.  But again, the way it is formulated, with twin alternatives to satisfy everyone, means that it need not be discussed, so we reach the same result regardless. By selecting the one part that you agree with, does Milton Mueller mean to suggest that he disagrees with or is unsure of the parts concerning transparency and accountability (which are two sides of the same coin)?  I was not sure. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 8/17/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I agree with this part of your statement. I do not think that a religious > grounding for rights is required, however. We should not get into that here, > it's outside the scope of this list. > >> Obviously, the only time anyone really needs a right is to do >> something somebody else doesn't want them to do -- or even that a >> majority doesn't want them to do, like speak to an unpopular issue. > >> [snip] >> If you follow what I'm saying above, and wish to resist tyranny of the >> majority as well as governmental tyranny and the tyranny of any other >> large concentration of power, then there must be a conception of >> rights that is beyond the ability of the majority, the government or >> any other power to legitimately alter or control.   Thus, such rights, >> while they can be violated, even violated for a very long time and >> egregiously so, NEVER go away or get waived.  They just get violated. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 17 20:20:04 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:20:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0908171314i16f334bfva359dc3163e28b67@mail.gmail.com> References: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <76f819dd0908171314i16f334bfva359dc3163e28b67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A89F3B4.8050603@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2009 01:14 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > One of the more powerful things in defense of the expansion of human > freedom and equality... One of the best ways to assure that a child fails is to require that child to compete with adults. Internet governance is a child. It is far, far too soon to engage on human rights issues as subjects of governance - one may discuss them, but an attempt to set forth today to build a supranational apparatus to protect those rights is likely to crash and fail. It is better that internet governance take child steps to address issues that are more easily obtained, most particularly issues grounded in the level of service of internet services. To make this concrete, an aspect of internet governance might be to establish service level definitions that must be met before a provider can claim to be offering support for VoIP. These would include not only bandwidth, delay, and jitter measures but also non-discrimination and privacy standards and a definition of what "management" measures are considered appropriate and what are not. In the DNS space, internet governance efforts could have success in doing that which ICANN has not: the establishment of criteria for DNS root (and perhaps some TLD) providers in terms of their ability to turn DNS query packets into DNS response packets, establishing metrics of availability, responsivity, privacy, and non-discrimination. There is also plenty of room to address the difficult issue of how one (whether that "one" be a person or a nation) to obtain assurances (not guarantees) of adequate levels of packet transport to support proposed applications. (For example, a nation that is considering a VoIP infrastructure might be concerned about assurances that that infrastructure can reach overseas.) Thus, internet governance issues might address the establishment of a clearinghouse through which users (and their agents) and providers might meet and arrange end-to-end assurances (again, not guarantees.) There is plenty of work to be done that can be done with success and that can build credibility for a subsequent effort to deal with the more difficult issues that are the focus of your note. --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 avri at psg.com Mon Aug 17 20:24:59 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:24:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Religion In-Reply-To: <8144.92359.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <8144.92359.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <666ADC59-D165-4A21-9749-C891E26393C4@psg.com> On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:57, Eric Dierker wrote: > of an IGF work list. with great trepidation of being drawn into the comic relief, i feel i need to point something out: this is _not_ an IGF work list. this is _not_ a UN work list as someone else mentioned in another email this is _not_ an ICANN complaint list as seems so often the case lately this is the Internet Governance Caucus work list the IGC is a civil society group focused on Internet Governance that began during WSIS. the IGC is a self formed bottom-up organization that developed its character and its rules over many years of devoted participation by many people many of those who formed it originally (i was not among them, but they have welcomed me and treated me well) are still with it . (though they are very silent recently for some reason.) so while it may discuss what goes on in the IGF or the UN or ICANN or the ITU or WIPO or OECD or any other esteemed fora where Internet governance is discussed or done, the IGC is not of those places or of those organizations, just interested in them and interested in contributing in them. cheers a. ps. i never filter anybody, though sometimes i do read the list with fear and trepidation. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 17 20:33:28 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <4A89F3B4.8050603@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <392324.38322.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Got that backwards Karl.  Rights come first. Governance comes after. Unless you prefer a declaration of government   ---   And then when ICANN gets around to it they give us stakeholder representation.   You would have us determine all the rules and restrictions on individual users before establishing the rules and restrictions on the rulers.  This is how we are doing it now.  This is why no representative of broad inclusion replaced your board seat.  When the people have no power then the powerful own all the people  - slavery.   Or you can have it Milton's preference. Benevolent dictators who know what is best for me and my children.  But censorship and exclusion is not so benevolent in the hands of elitists. --- On Tue, 8/18/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 12:20 AM On 08/17/2009 01:14 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > One of the more powerful things in defense of the expansion of human > freedom and equality... One of the best ways to assure that a child fails is to require that child to compete with adults. Internet governance is a child. It is far, far too soon to engage on human rights issues as subjects of governance - one may discuss them, but an attempt to set forth today to build a supranational apparatus to protect those rights is likely to crash and fail. It is better that internet governance take child steps to address issues that are more easily obtained, most particularly issues grounded in the level of service of internet services. To make this concrete, an aspect of internet governance might be to establish service level definitions that must be met before a provider can claim to be offering support for VoIP.  These would include not only bandwidth, delay, and jitter measures but also non-discrimination and privacy standards and a definition of what "management" measures are considered appropriate and what are not. In the DNS space, internet governance efforts could have success in doing that which ICANN has not: the establishment of criteria for DNS root (and perhaps some TLD) providers in terms of their ability to turn DNS query packets into DNS response packets, establishing metrics of availability, responsivity, privacy, and non-discrimination. There is also plenty of room to address the difficult issue of how one (whether that "one" be a person or a nation) to obtain assurances (not guarantees) of adequate levels of packet transport to support proposed applications.  (For example, a nation that is considering a VoIP infrastructure might be concerned about assurances that that infrastructure can reach overseas.)  Thus, internet governance issues might address the establishment of a clearinghouse through which users (and their agents) and providers might meet and arrange end-to-end assurances (again, not guarantees.) There is plenty of work to be done that can be done with success and that can build credibility for a subsequent effort to deal with the more difficult issues that are the focus of your note.         --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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 17 21:57:59 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Religion In-Reply-To: <666ADC59-D165-4A21-9749-C891E26393C4@psg.com> Message-ID: <319187.54795.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Very odd that you would devote so much to what it is not  --  but never really say what it is.   May I be so bold as to trepidatiously suggest you post these;  (oops, just did)   To be sure we know we operate under UN WSIS principles and context; http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html And to understand the mission of this list, and to remember our equality: http://www.igcaucus.org/      Mission The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.   Membership The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties. --- On Tue, 8/18/09, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Civil & Political Entitlements, and a Declaration of Religion To: "Governance/IGC List" Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 12:24 AM On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:57, Eric Dierker wrote: > of an IGF work list. with great trepidation of being drawn into the comic relief, i feel i need to point something out: this is _not_ an IGF work list. this is _not_ a UN work list as someone else mentioned in another email this is _not_ an ICANN complaint list as seems so often the case lately this is the Internet Governance Caucus work list the IGC is a civil society group focused on Internet Governance that began during WSIS. the IGC is a self formed bottom-up organization that developed its character and its rules over many years of devoted participation by many people many of those who formed it originally (i was not among them, but they have welcomed me and treated me well) are still with it . (though they are very silent recently for some reason.) so while it may discuss what goes on in the IGF or the UN or ICANN or the ITU or WIPO or OECD or any other esteemed fora where Internet governance is discussed or done, the IGC is not of those places or of those organizations, just interested in them and interested in contributing in them. cheers a. ps. i never filter anybody, though sometimes i do read the list with fear and trepidation. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Aug 17 22:12:17 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:12:17 +1000 Subject: [governance] Public warning to Erik Dierker In-Reply-To: <319187.54795.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Erik, Further to the recent private warning sent to you by the Co-ordinators - This is a public warning to ask you to ensure that you limit your postings on the internet governance list to a maximum of 5 per day (24 hour period) and that postings are relevant to the subject matter of this list. This is to ensure that a balance of viewpoints is obtained on the list and it does not become dominated by any individual or individuals. The co-ordinators will activate a suspension if they feel you are not following these guidelines. Many Thanks, Ian Peter and Ginger Paque Co coordinators > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 10:42:31 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:42:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <4A89F3B4.8050603@cavebear.com> References: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <76f819dd0908171314i16f334bfva359dc3163e28b67@mail.gmail.com> <4A89F3B4.8050603@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0908180742g14612912u5ad2ad2b20987b56@mail.gmail.com> Re: "child steps" and gradualism... The internet may be a "child" relative to older documents but it has already had applied to it, as it should, "adult" rights like the First Amendment freedom of speech in the USA. The horse is out of the barn and the internet is already grown up. Martin Luther King Jr spoke of the "tranquillizing drug of gradualism" -- and demanded that democracy/rights be made real NOW. This is always the call. Half of a right is not a right at all. Torture every other day, anyone? Free speech only on weekends? Such compromises are nothing but violations. Thus, a compromise of a core right is nothing less than a violation of a core right. Whatever the right is conceived to be, if it is a core right, it is entitled to full performance at the present moment, not child steps. What changes over history is the CONCEPTION of the rights and their robustness. That is, the TARGET changes. But the right is always to have the target now, not to compromise on the target. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 8/17/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/17/2009 01:14 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> One of the more powerful things in defense of the expansion of human >> freedom and equality... > > One of the best ways to assure that a child fails is to require that > child to compete with adults. > > Internet governance is a child. > > It is far, far too soon to engage on human rights issues as subjects of > governance - one may discuss them, but an attempt to set forth today to > build a supranational apparatus to protect those rights is likely to > crash and fail. > > It is better that internet governance take child steps to address issues > that are more easily obtained, most particularly issues grounded in the > level of service of internet services. > > To make this concrete, an aspect of internet governance might be to > establish service level definitions that must be met before a provider > can claim to be offering support for VoIP. These would include not only > bandwidth, delay, and jitter measures but also non-discrimination and > privacy standards and a definition of what "management" measures are > considered appropriate and what are not. > > In the DNS space, internet governance efforts could have success in > doing that which ICANN has not: the establishment of criteria for DNS > root (and perhaps some TLD) providers in terms of their ability to turn > DNS query packets into DNS response packets, establishing metrics of > availability, responsivity, privacy, and non-discrimination. > > There is also plenty of room to address the difficult issue of how one > (whether that "one" be a person or a nation) to obtain assurances (not > guarantees) of adequate levels of packet transport to support proposed > applications. (For example, a nation that is considering a VoIP > infrastructure might be concerned about assurances that that > infrastructure can reach overseas.) Thus, internet governance issues > might address the establishment of a clearinghouse through which users > (and their agents) and providers might meet and arrange end-to-end > assurances (again, not guarantees.) > > There is plenty of work to be done that can be done with success and > that can build credibility for a subsequent effort to deal with the more > difficult issues that are the focus of your note. > > --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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 02:10:05 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:10:05 +0200 Subject: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] Message-ID: Dear Eric I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. Yours Rui 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > > > On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >> >> act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at >> present Internet Governance is a child. >> > > No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The > education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this > reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet > governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe > the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the > Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - > http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. > > If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the Internet > always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol evolves - > then they would be seeking less government reliance on the internet and they > would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most of the > infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - DNSSEC a > public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. > > This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious about > protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask > legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way > to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. > > Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more > wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. > It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos > et mutamur en illis. > > regards > joe baptista > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 02:42:17 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:42:17 +0200 Subject: STOP CCing me [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? Message-ID: Dear Jeffrey Please remove me from your CC list. I've been a member of the Governance list since its inception, so there is no need - as much as I appreciate your concerns - to write to me separately. Rui 2009/8/18 Jeffrey A. Williams > Eric and all, > > > > You got it exactly right here Eric. Unfortunately there are some as Karl > kinda points out that > > act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at present > Internet Governance > > is a child. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dierker > Sent: Aug 17, 2009 8:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Karl Auerbach > Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > > Got that backwards Karl. Rights come first. Governance comes after. > Unless you prefer a declaration of government --- And then when ICANN > gets around to it they give us stakeholder representation. > > You would have us determine all the rules and restrictions on individual > users before establishing the rules and restrictions on the rulers. This is > how we are doing it now. This is why no representative of broad inclusion > replaced your board seat. When the people have no power then the powerful > own all the people - slavery. > > Or you can have it Milton's preference. Benevolent dictators who know what > is best for me and my children. But censorship and exclusion is not so > benevolent in the hands of elitists. > > --- On *Tue, 8/18/09, Karl Auerbach * wrote: > > > From: Karl Auerbach > Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 12:20 AM > > On 08/17/2009 01:14 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > One of the more powerful things in defense of the expansion of human > > freedom and equality... > > One of the best ways to assure that a child fails is to require that child > to compete with adults. > > Internet governance is a child. > > It is far, far too soon to engage on human rights issues as subjects of > governance - one may discuss them, but an attempt to set forth today to > build a supranational apparatus to protect those rights is likely to crash > and fail. > > It is better that internet governance take child steps to address issues > that are more easily obtained, most particularly issues grounded in the > level of service of internet services. > > To make this concrete, an aspect of internet governance might be to > establish service level definitions that must be met before a provider can > claim to be offering support for VoIP. These would include not only > bandwidth, delay, and jitter measures but also non-discrimination and > privacy standards and a definition of what "management" measures are > considered appropriate and what are not. > > In the DNS space, internet governance efforts could have success in doing > that which ICANN has not: the establishment of criteria for DNS root (and > perhaps some TLD) providers in terms of their ability to turn DNS query > packets into DNS response packets, establishing metrics of availability, > responsivity, privacy, and non-discrimination. > > There is also plenty of room to address the difficult issue of how one > (whether that "one" be a person or a nation) to obtain assurances (not > guarantees) of adequate levels of packet transport to support proposed > applications. (For example, a nation that is considering a VoIP > infrastructure might be concerned about assurances that that infrastructure > can reach overseas.) Thus, internet governance issues might address the > establishment of a clearinghouse through which users (and their agents) and > providers might meet and arrange end-to-end assurances (again, not > guarantees.) > > There is plenty of work to be done that can be done with success and that > can build credibility for a subsequent effort to deal with the more > difficult issues that are the focus of your note. > > --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 > > > > Regards, > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 19 07:35:42 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:35:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an amendment to the IGC charter relating to List Posting rules Message-ID: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made according to the following process: This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future. Part of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having any clear guidelines or assistance. In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt RFC 3934 and "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. The proposed amendment contains the following elements: - statement of the purpose of the IGC list - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC lists that may be created - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the following manner: a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree that action needs to be taken c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. > Any decision to remove someone from the list will > call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on http://www.igcaucus.org/ Carlos A.Afonso Vittorio Bertola Wilie Curie Avri Doria (co-author) Wiliam Drake Bret Fausett Robin Gross Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) Wolfgang Kleinwächter Jeremy Malcolm Lee W. McKnight Jacqueline A. Morris Adam Peake Parminder Singh David Souter Christopher Wilkinson ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: draft-Posting Rules for the IGC-v4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71653 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-Posting Rules for the IGC-v4.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 68122 bytes Desc: not available URL: From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 09:22:19 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:22:19 +0200 Subject: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] In-Reply-To: <874c02a20908190556o23da3a9ft21cb9ed45cd17384@mail.gmail.com> References: <874c02a20908190556o23da3a9ft21cb9ed45cd17384@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Joe I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part of a discussion or not. Regards, Rui 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > Hi Rui: > > I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this list. > The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list the cc > is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply - the > response goes directly to the poster and not the list. > > Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to > ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list > admins - not with me. > > regards > joe baptista > > > > On 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: >> >> Dear Eric >> >> I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no >> need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. >> Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. >> >> Yours >> >> Rui >> >> 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista >> >>> >>> >>> On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >>>> >>>> act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at >>>> present Internet Governance is a child. >>>> >>> >>> No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The >>> education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this >>> reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet >>> governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe >>> the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the >>> Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - >>> http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. >>> >>> If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the >>> Internet always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol >>> evolves - then they would be seeking less government reliance on the >>> internet and they would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most >>> of the infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - >>> DNSSEC a public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. >>> >>> This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious >>> about protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask >>> legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way >>> to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. >>> >>> Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more >>> wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. >>> It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos >>> et mutamur en illis. >>> >>> regards >>> joe baptista >>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 13:17:29 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:17:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights like ownership, and Privatization via ICANN, etc. Message-ID: <76f819dd0908191017q1faaf930o40917a053056c884@mail.gmail.com> All political power emanates from rights, which include ownership, free speech, and on... If the rights of ordinary people have to take "baby steps" or child steps when in fact in real courts are applied grown up concepts of free speech and property rights (albeit to a new context of cyberspace), then the following results: The rights of ordinary people are reduced to childlike status, and property rights, believe me, are ALWAYS enforced like grownup rights, no matter how young the "child" is. I encourage all not to be taken by modesty or the concept of child steps, which are not only violations of rights (as I pointed out earlier, all compromises of basic rights are violations of them and nothing more, unless a right of equal or greater weight were directly in conflict, which is rare) but also if adopted broadly would virtually guarantee an internet that is fundamentally privatized, because the public interest is slow in advancing its cause, while private interests are not, and will not be, similarly slow or unimaginative in advancing their cause. The classic example of inappropriate privatization is ICANN itself, a creation of the US Commerce Dept, by delegating authority to this corporation without setting detailed standards to run it by as required by the constitutional "non-delegation doctrine." IN sum, this doctrine requires that government not abdicate (like they do in privatizing core functions) their authority to any third party without such standards to guide that third party such that it can FAIRLY be said that the people, via their legislators, are still in control (via the standards or rules) Suffice it to say that the standards and rules on ICANN are insufficient. All forms of privatization, at bottom, move things out from under the umbrella of rights and constitutions (by making them non-governmental), thereby reducing the people's power and rights. One is not neutral when riding on a train, so if we go with the flow of the internet privatization, one is committed to a process of privatization whether one knows it, or not, and whether they intend it, or not. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 19 14:27:37 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Stop attributing to me actions I do not take In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <768941.74931.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Rui you are mistaken.  I have never added your name, to any post on the list.   As a further note. On your relation with Ian.  I made 5 posts in that 24 hour period -- to the list.  However I made one private one to you.  Ian counted the one to you in his public warning.  What kind of open and transparent is that?   Note I did not add you or take you off a response to your post. Note I will change behavior, but I will not acquiesce to being bullied on a list that holds itself out as open.  Be honest and close this list as you wish and that is fine.  But do not hold yourself out when submitting documents and position papers as being open, transparent and my voice as an individual as your list claims. --- On Wed, 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] To: "Joe Baptista" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 1:22 PM Dear Joe I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part of a discussion or not. Regards, Rui 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista Hi Rui: I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this list. The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list the cc is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply - the response goes directly to the poster and not the list. Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list admins - not with me. regards joe baptista On 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: Dear Eric I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. Yours Rui  2009/8/19 Joe Baptista On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at present Internet Governance is a child. No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the Internet always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol evolves - then they would be seeking less government reliance on the internet and they would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most of the infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - DNSSEC a public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious about protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur en illis. regards joe baptista Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ----------------------------------------------------------------   Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)      Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Wed Aug 19 14:46:41 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:46:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an amendment to the IGC charter In-Reply-To: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> References: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette and all, Is it possible perhaps to include from the draft posting rules that ENGLISH should be the language of the list? Some of us do not speak Latin, French et al and English is our common ground as we all also have our own local/native language. This way, it does not also exclude others and some may intentionally discredit or attack someone personally by using a different language (could be an act of defiance). Just a thought. Thanks! Regards, Charity G.E. On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will > be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the charter > (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to deal with > disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future. Part of the > problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole responsibility > rests with the coordinators without them having any clear guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 19 15:06:23 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:06:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an amendment to the IGC charter In-Reply-To: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> References: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Count me as +1 rgds, McTim On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will > be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the charter > (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to deal with > disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future. Part of the > problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole responsibility > rests with the coordinators without them having any clear guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 19 15:20:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Rights like ownership, and Privatization via ICANN, etc. In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0908191017q1faaf930o40917a053056c884@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <171683.11044.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Paul,   I like where your going with this but I do not like where you have been.  Ownership rights are indeed a concept imagined in most inalienable rights matrix. But are they, or should they be equal to "dignity" rights?   I think if we look hard we will find that it is not the property right itself that is so important but rather the due process that goes along with denying that right.  It is and I think it should be very strong.  However when human dignity rights like the right not to be persecuted due to religious beliefs comes into conflict with a property "right" such as ownership of copyrights (not a right) the former must take precedence &carry more water.   This list is an easy example.  Assume we have a license to be here. (yes a license is a property right -- usually shorter in duration and for limited purpose than a fee simple absolute which probably no longer exists) That is a property right. They will deny your right to be HERE, but they cannot deny your right to speak -- just go do it on a truly open list. The due process here amounts to ten folks getting together in private and off list.  This works for HERE and this license. It can not work for my dignity right to speak.   IP interests are likewise interesting. Somewhere someone confused copyright with rights. Not the case and now we must undue this backward conception.   --- On Wed, 8/19/09, Paul Lehto wrote: From: Paul Lehto Subject: [governance] Rights like ownership, and Privatization via ICANN, etc. To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 5:17 PM All political power emanates from rights, which include ownership, free speech, and on... If the rights of ordinary people have to take "baby steps" or child steps when in fact in real courts are applied grown  up concepts of free speech and property rights (albeit to a new context of cyberspace), then the following results: The rights of ordinary people are reduced to childlike status, and property rights, believe me, are ALWAYS enforced like grownup rights, no matter how young the "child" is. I encourage all not to be taken by modesty or the concept of child steps, which are not only violations of rights (as I pointed out earlier, all compromises of basic rights are violations of them and nothing more, unless a right of equal or greater weight were directly in conflict, which is rare) but also if adopted broadly would virtually guarantee an internet that is fundamentally privatized, because the public interest is slow in advancing its cause, while private interests are not, and will not be, similarly slow or unimaginative in advancing their cause. The classic example of inappropriate privatization is ICANN itself, a creation of the US Commerce Dept, by delegating authority to this corporation without setting detailed standards to run it by as required by the constitutional "non-delegation doctrine."  IN sum, this doctrine requires that government not abdicate (like they do in privatizing core functions) their authority to any third party without such standards to guide that third party such that it can FAIRLY be said that the people, via their legislators, are still in control (via the standards or rules) Suffice it to say that the standards and rules on ICANN are insufficient. All forms of privatization, at bottom, move things out from under the umbrella of rights and constitutions (by making them non-governmental), thereby reducing the people's power and rights. One is not neutral when riding on a train, so if we go with the flow of the internet privatization, one is committed to a process of privatization whether one knows it, or not, and whether they intend it, or not. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2333 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 15:41:14 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:11:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Role of CSTD in the IGF review process. Message-ID: Hello All, I was at the European Summer School of Internet Governanceat Meissen recently and happened to have an informal conversation with one of the faculty members who happens to be an individual who values the IGF as much as we all do. Most of us in this list have contributed to a positive review of the IGF and almost all of us believe that the IGF should continue. We have given our inputs, but the process of decision making requires inputs from the CSTD of ECOSOC. CSTD ( http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4239&lang=1 ) has to make a recommendation to the UN to renew the mandate for the IGF. So, in a sense this is an important and crucial step in the review process. The CSTD is a body with representatives named by the foreign ministries of the governments. Tradionally IGF participation is from the ICT ministries of most governments. So, what is closely followed by the ICT ministries might only have been very broadly followed by the Foreign / External affairs ministries. What needs to be done is to impress upon the foreign minsties / CSTD nominees of our Governments that the mandate for IGF needs to be renewed. Some of the participants of this list are well connected. Would it be possible to think of reaching out to the CSTD delegations through the Foreign Ministries with help from the ICT Ministries? This is a bit of a diplomatic exercise that is necessary. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. India. Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 19 15:59:57 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Role of CSTD in the IGF review process. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <782984.22601.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I had just finished reviewing some of these core docs over at  http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs//ecn162008_r003_en.pdf   And had the pleasure of Tel visit with a friend up at Berkeley that I will visit tomorrow and found an interesting issue, which you highlight here.  You do not mention a real why?  Why this program should be continued. Oh fine, because of contributions, because of great folks here,,,,  but that is not part of the mandate that I can find.  My understanding of Academia's role connected with WSIS, and Role of CSTD in the IGF review process was not to promulgate but discover. Not to say what should be done, but to say what is desired by those who would be governed. To boldly go into the Internet community as it were and is and discover what the needs of the people were and are and will be. I think the peoples' desire was in there also, not just what we think they need but what they want.   If you show me that I am wrong I will go away and leave this list in peace.  I am talking wrong in the general idea and direction that the representatives wanted us to go. Not wrong in phraseology.  Otherwise I will go with my children's' adaptation of; Bad things happen when ______ women stay silent. --- On Wed, 8/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: [governance] Role of CSTD in the IGF review process. To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 7:41 PM Hello All, I was at the European Summer School of Internet Governance at Meissen recently and happened to have an informal conversation with one of the faculty members who happens to be an individual who values the IGF as much as we all do. Most of us in this list have contributed to a positive review of the IGF and almost all of us believe that the IGF should continue. We have given our inputs, but the process of decision making requires inputs from the CSTD of ECOSOC. CSTD  ( http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4239&lang=1 ) has to make a recommendation to the UN to renew the mandate for the IGF. So, in a sense this is an important and crucial step in the review process. The CSTD is a body with representatives named by the foreign ministries of the governments. Tradionally IGF participation is from the ICT ministries of most governments. So, what is closely followed by the ICT ministries might only have been very broadly followed by the Foreign / External affairs ministries. What needs to be done is to impress upon the foreign minsties / CSTD nominees of our Governments that the mandate for IGF needs to be renewed. Some of the participants of this list are well connected. Would it be possible to think of reaching out to the CSTD delegations through the Foreign Ministries with help from the ICT Ministries? This is a bit of a diplomatic exercise that is necessary. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. India. Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 19 16:17:35 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:17:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Role of CSTD in the IGF review process. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7Peu6ODf3FjKFANP@perry.co.uk> In message , at 01:11:14 on Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy writes >The CSTD is a body with representatives named by the foreign ministries >of the governments. Tradionally IGF participation is from the ICT >ministries of most governments. Having been at this year's CSTD meeting (with some other list members) I didn't get the impression that the various Member State representatives were as out of touch as you suggest. They seemed to comprehend the issues well (and there was much more discussion of the IGF renewal related matters than you might have expected from the agenda). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From natasha at apc.org Wed Aug 19 16:19:42 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:19:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an amendment to the IGC charter In-Reply-To: References: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <28DBCD6B-6532-486D-8398-33F1B39A4FC1@apc.org> do also count in anriette esterhuysen and myself regards, natasha On 19 Aug 2009, at 9:06 PM, McTim wrote: > Count me as +1 > > rgds, > > McTim > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > will be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the > charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic > to deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the > future. Part of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact > that the sole responsibility rests with the coordinators without > them having any clear guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current > charter: > > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. > Any decision to remove someone from the list will > call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From natasha at apc.org Wed Aug 19 16:08:21 2009 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:08:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an amendment to the IGC charter In-Reply-To: References: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: also add me and anriette esterhuysen regards, natasha On 19 Aug 2009, at 9:06 PM, McTim wrote: > Count me as +1 > > rgds, > > McTim > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > will be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the > charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic > to deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the > future. Part of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact > that the sole responsibility rests with the coordinators without > them having any clear guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current > charter: > > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. > Any decision to remove someone from the list will > call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 19 16:55:20 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:55:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an amendment to the IGC charter In-Reply-To: References: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A8C66B8.7090204@wzb.eu> Hi Natasha and McTim, thanks for your support. Please keep in mind that there will be a formal vote to get the proposal implemented. We have just taken the first threshold to initiate the process. jeanette Natasha Primo wrote: > also add me and anriette esterhuysen > > regards, > natasha > > > On 19 Aug 2009, at 9:06 PM, McTim wrote: > >> Count me as +1 >> >> rgds, >> >> McTim >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: >> >> >> >> To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: >> >> According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made >> according to the following process: >> >> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer >> than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) >> of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending >> the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. >> In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >> election will be >> deemed a member for amending the charter. >> >> Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the >> undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the >> charter (attached to this email) that will make it less >> problematic to deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list >> in the future. Part of the problem we are trying to remedy is the >> fact that the sole responsibility rests with the coordinators >> without them having any clear guidelines or >> assistance. >> >> In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for >> Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt >> RFC 3934 and "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF >> Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the >> rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. >> >> The proposed amendment contains the following elements: >> >> - statement of the purpose of the IGC list >> - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC >> lists that may be created >> - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) >> >> We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire >> to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the >> posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of >> when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. >> >> If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current >> members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the >> following manner: >> >> a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken >> b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree >> that action needs to be taken >> c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to >> consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken >> >> The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current >> charter: >> >> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> >> >> Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> Carlos A.Afonso >> Vittorio Bertola >> Wilie Curie >> Avri Doria (co-author) >> Wiliam Drake >> Bret Fausett >> Robin Gross >> Michael Gurstein >> Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Lee W. McKnight >> Jacqueline A. Morris >> Adam Peake >> Parminder Singh >> David Souter >> Christopher Wilkinson >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > Natasha Primo > National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 19:25:01 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:55:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Role of CSTD in the IGF review process. In-Reply-To: <7Peu6ODf3FjKFANP@perry.co.uk> References: <7Peu6ODf3FjKFANP@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: Hello Roland, Feels good to know that the CSTD had discussions about IGF at length. I didn't imply that the CSTD to be totally out of touch, but felt that CSTD might not have followed it as closely as representatives of the ICT ministries would have. There would be no harm if we pay a bit of attention to the CSTD phase of the IGF review process. And beyond watching what happens at the CSTD, if we can find a way to reach out to the CSTD it would be one more step (even if redundant) in ensuring that the IGF is renewed. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , > at 01:11:14 on Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn at gmail.com> writes > >> The CSTD is a body with representatives named by the foreign ministries of >> the governments. Tradionally IGF participation is from the ICT ministries of >> most governments. >> > > Having been at this year's CSTD meeting (with some other list members) I > didn't get the impression that the various Member State representatives were > as out of touch as you suggest. They seemed to comprehend the issues well > (and there was much more discussion of the IGF renewal related matters than > you might have expected from the agenda). > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 20:06:56 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:36:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Proposal for an amendment to the IGC charter relating to List Posting rules In-Reply-To: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> References: <4A8BE38E.3030401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A8C93A0.2060605@gmail.com> Dear all, Thanks to the involved group of people for this charter amendment proposal. We should now allow approximately a week of discussion, and then should proceed to a vote on the proposed amendment starting about Monday August 31 if that is appropriate and confirmed later next week. Regards, Ginger Paque and Ian Peter IGC co-coordinators Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > will be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the > charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to > deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future. > Part of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole > responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having any > clear guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > >> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 19 20:55:11 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:55:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? In-Reply-To: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <861535.89691.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <61a136f40908191755x2f62e6b5se9a345f59afc6e87@mail.gmail.com> Eric says "*America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not run our rig that way*." As one who also thinks and define my own existence from that action, I am truly surprised here. This could be the minority jaundiced view but I have never believed that ICANN would/could exist without substantive USG oversight. Given what I know of the US political order and with eyes wide open and mind engaged, it is unlikely. When the smoke clears, invoking the national security of the United States on any issue trumps all other considerations. Here we stand. If JPA - or by whatever name its replacement is finally implemented - is to go, I am opposed to a replacement of one suzerain power with another to the exclusion of the rest of us in the world. All this aside, the deed is done and the die is cast. I must and am willing to be proved wrong on this. Speaking of revisionism, historical and otherwise, I wonder in what context would we interpret [US presidential] executive orders? And what do you make of the instances where their execution have - by means fair and foul - imposed the American will elsewhere in the world? Carlton Samuels On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I am concerned that with the JPA significant dates edging ever closer, this > type of anti American revisionist history will become more prevalant. Let us > hope not. Let us begin by making it known that innaccuracies such as this > will be challenged. > > America has never and most likely will never have any decrees. We do not > run our rig that way. Doctrines are a statement of intention by executives > in governance, they are not law or treaty. The Monroe Doctrine is a > statement against a *Holy Alliance* that threatened to reinstate > colonialism. It was a statement to our lawmakers how the executive planned > on dealing with others. > > All nations are allowed to make moves to secure their borders. Internet > governance must accept and enjoy the cultural integrity that goes along with > this forever necessity. All nations should feel confident and indeed plan > for future independence regarding telecommunications. If the United States > can effectively maintain and control access to information for other > countries, it would be incumbent upon those countries to change that > reliance. > > > > --- On *Sun, 7/19/09, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy *wrote: > > > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Subject: Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Vanda Scartezini" > Cc: "Carlton Samuels" , ""Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang"" > Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:10 PM > > Hello All, > > President James Monroe decreed in 1823 that any attempt to extend foreign > political systems onto U.S. soil would be considered an act of aggression > requiring U.S. intervention. This was essentially for national defense. > > Mary Ann Davidson proposed to invoke the Doctrine" to put the world on > notice that the *US has cyberturf,* and that we will defend our turf" It > would be a distortion of this doctrine, if quoted to propose policies that > would amount to no less than an US aggression of a space that it common to > the whole world. What is proposed is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine in > that sense. > > Why would Oracle say this? > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > 2009/7/19 Vanda Scartezini > > > >> Carlton >> I guess I could add many others examples to your comments. Lets not be >> naïve on this. >> >> *Vanda Scartezini* >> *POLO Consultores Associados* >> *& IT Trend* >> *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8* >> *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.* >> *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253* >> *Mob + 5511 8181.1464*** >> >> *From:* carlton.samuels at gmail.com[mailto: >> carlton.samuels at gmail.com] >> *On Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; >> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace? >> >> >> Um, see, history matters! Those of us on the periphery of empire can >> attest to that. >> >> Seems I share some common reading material with Ms. Davidson. And while >> we read the same books, her worldview leads her to count all other actors in >> the space as merely collateral damage. >> >> The Monroe Doctrine is an unfortunate metaphor applied to either >> cybersecurity or Internet governance. I shall take the most benign >> explanation and insist she is blithely unaware of the deleterious impact of >> the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America and the Caribbean. Honduras is just the >> latest gasp in a sorry history of an execrable policy that delivered >> "repeated injuries and usurpations greviously committed" and unilateral >> extraterritorial interventions resulting in stunted democratic institutions, >> mayhem and murder. Other stakeholders, the local people for one, were never >> recognized as having worthwhile much less sovereign interests. She clearly >> does not know the true history of the United Fruit Company in Central >> America and other implementing tools of this doctrine. I won't even >> mention Haiti. >> >> Let us be clear. The views expressed by Madame Reding of the EC inre >> ICANN-related Internet governance issues are merely more, well.....shall we >> say nuanced...as befits a better understanding of the sweep of history and >> its impact on the future. >> >> History is not bunk. And culture is a helluva thing! >> >> Carlton Samuels >> 2009/7/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> > >> Here is a good statement from Mary Ann Davidson, CSO from Oracle, where >> she proposes a "Monroe Doctrin" for Internet Governance. This is an extended >> version from a statement she made in a Congressional Hearing recently. >> >> If somebody expected that we will soon the end of the IG debate, the >> contrary will be the case: The discussion has just started and the risk is, >> that all the new entrants in the discussion will probably not understand, >> what multistakeholderism is and why this has been an achievement for the >> diplomacy of the 1st decade of the 21st century. The 2nd decade could look >> rather different. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 02:48:25 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:48:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] Message-ID: Jeffrey and Eric Apologies to others, but this is pertinent as we are now engaged in the exercise of redefining list participation rules. 1. I am a subscriber to the list, therefore there is no need to CC me or any other subscriber. 2. Email that is sent unsolicited is the primary criterion of what constitutes spam. Sending spam is against the current rules (and the proposed new rules). You are therefore in breach of the rules. The recipient informing the sender that the mail is unwelcome merely constitutes an aggraving factor. 3. Any one is free to further disseminate list debates/ discussions to external interested parties by means of CC/ BCC/ FWD whenever one has reason to believe that the recipient(s) will welcome receiving such posting(s). 4. Depending on applicability, anyone resorting to CCing when that person's posting rights have been suspended is guilty of contravening the suspension. In view of the above, I am asking you one last time - STOP CCing me. I trust that the above is in order. Rui 2009/8/20 Jeffrey A. Williams > Rui and all, > > > > I would think that the IGC/IGF would welcome anyone to the discussion > that is CC'ed if the discussion > > is open and transparent in accordance with UN and IGC charter. After all > the issues discussed are of, > > or do directly or indirectly the global public do they not? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia > Sent: Aug 19, 2009 8:22 AM > To: Joe Baptista , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: > [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] > > Dear Joe > > I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, > he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part > of a discussion or not. > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > >> Hi Rui: >> >> I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this >> list. The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list >> the cc is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply >> - the response goes directly to the poster and not the list. >> >> Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to >> ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list >> admins - not with me. >> >> regards >> joe baptista >> >> >> >> On 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: >>> >>> Dear Eric >>> >>> I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no >>> need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. >>> Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>> act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at >>>>> present Internet Governance is a child. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The >>>> education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this >>>> reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet >>>> governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe >>>> the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the >>>> Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - >>>> http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. >>>> >>>> If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the >>>> Internet always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol >>>> evolves - then they would be seeking less government reliance on the >>>> internet and they would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most >>>> of the infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - >>>> DNSSEC a public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. >>>> >>>> This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious >>>> about protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask >>>> legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way >>>> to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more >>>> wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. >>>> It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos >>>> et mutamur en illis. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> joe baptista >>>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > Regards, > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 03:31:52 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:31:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Apologies to Eric [was: Stop attributing to me actions I do not take] Message-ID: Dear Eric Any emails from myself about being CCd by Eric and Jeffrey refer to Joe Baptista and Jeffrey. My apologies to Eric. My email was aimed at Joe. For some reason, I got the two mixed up. You will see from the my original email about being CCd that I emailed the list and Joe, but somehow, it was your name that I typed in and thereafter retained in connection with the CCing of emails. Without in any way detracting from the fact that I was wrong and am apologising for it, I would like to add in my defence that you have on occasion, used the "reply to all" function to emails in which the previous person had CCd me, resulting in you indirectly and perhaps unwittingly CCing me. Best regards, Rui 2009/8/19 Eric Dierker > Rui you are mistaken. I have never added your name, to any post on the > list. > > As a further note. On your relation with Ian. I made 5 posts in that 24 > hour period -- to the list. However I made one private one to you. Ian > counted the one to you in his public warning. What kind of open and > transparent is that? > > Note I did not add you or take you off a response to your post. Note I will > change behavior, but I will not acquiesce to being bullied on a list that > holds itself out as open. Be honest and close this list as you wish and > that is fine. But do not hold yourself out when submitting documents and > position papers as being open, transparent and my voice as an individual as > your list claims. > > --- On *Wed, 8/19/09, Rui Correia * wrote: > > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: Re: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: > [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] > To: "Joe Baptista" , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 1:22 PM > > Dear Joe > > I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, > he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part > of a discussion or not. > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > > > >> Hi Rui: >> >> I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this >> list. The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list >> the cc is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply >> - the response goes directly to the poster and not the list. >> >> Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to >> ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list >> admins - not with me. >> >> regards >> joe baptista >> >> >> >> On 8/19/09, Rui Correia > >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Eric >>> >>> I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no >>> need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. >>> Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista >>> > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams > >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at >>>>> present Internet Governance is a child. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The >>>> education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this >>>> reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet >>>> governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe >>>> the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the >>>> Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - >>>> http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. >>>> >>>> If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the >>>> Internet always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol >>>> evolves - then they would be seeking less government reliance on the >>>> internet and they would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most >>>> of the infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - >>>> DNSSEC a public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. >>>> >>>> This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious >>>> about protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask >>>> legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way >>>> to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more >>>> wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. >>>> It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos >>>> et mutamur en illis. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> joe baptista >>>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 04:01:17 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:01:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] Message-ID: Dear All My earlier email refers (CCd only to involved parties). I apologise for wrongly attributing to Eric emails CCd to me, whereas I was referring to Joe Baptista. In the email I did in fact email the list AND (and only) Joe, BUT in the body of the email errouneously referred to Eric and thereafter the name stuck in my mind and I repeated the error. I do apologise to Eric for any inconvenience caused. I am conveyed that to Eric in a reply to an email from him on that subject. I would however like to refer to my earlier email below and include a point 5 that reads as follows: 5. Using the "Reply to All" function, therefore emailing a former poster's personally CC'd recipients shall equally contitute an act of unsilicited emailing, i.e., spam. Put differently, if a member of the list decides to CC any of his acquaintances, that does not entitle another member to include those members in his/ her reply/ comment/ reaction. Please read points 1 to 4 below (taking into account that the name Eric in fact refers to Joe: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rui Correia Date: 2009/8/20 Subject: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Jeffrey and Eric Apologies to others, but this is pertinent as we are now engaged in the exercise of redefining list participation rules. 1. I am a subscriber to the list, therefore there is no need to CC me or any other subscriber. 2. Email that is sent unsolicited is the primary criterion of what constitutes spam. Sending spam is against the current rules (and the proposed new rules). You are therefore in breach of the rules. The recipient informing the sender that the mail is unwelcome merely constitutes an aggraving factor. 3. Any one is free to further disseminate list debates/ discussions to external interested parties by means of CC/ BCC/ FWD whenever one has reason to believe that the recipient(s) will welcome receiving such posting(s). 4. Depending on applicability, anyone resorting to CCing when that person's posting rights have been suspended is guilty of contravening the suspension. In view of the above, I am asking you one last time - STOP CCing me. I trust that the above is in order. Rui 2009/8/20 Jeffrey A. Williams > Rui and all, > > > > I would think that the IGC/IGF would welcome anyone to the discussion > that is CC'ed if the discussion > > is open and transparent in accordance with UN and IGC charter. After all > the issues discussed are of, > > or do directly or indirectly the global public do they not? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia > Sent: Aug 19, 2009 8:22 AM > To: Joe Baptista , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: > [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] > > Dear Joe > > I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, > he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part > of a discussion or not. > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > >> Hi Rui: >> >> I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this >> list. The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list >> the cc is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply >> - the response goes directly to the poster and not the list. >> >> Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to >> ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list >> admins - not with me. >> >> regards >> joe baptista >> >> >> >> On 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: >>> >>> Dear Eric >>> >>> I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no >>> need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. >>> Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>> act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at >>>>> present Internet Governance is a child. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The >>>> education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this >>>> reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet >>>> governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe >>>> the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the >>>> Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - >>>> http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. >>>> >>>> If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the >>>> Internet always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol >>>> evolves - then they would be seeking less government reliance on the >>>> internet and they would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most >>>> of the infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - >>>> DNSSEC a public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. >>>> >>>> This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious >>>> about protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask >>>> legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way >>>> to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more >>>> wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. >>>> It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos >>>> et mutamur en illis. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> joe baptista >>>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > Regards, > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 04:05:03 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] Message-ID: Dear All My earlier email refers (CCd only to involved parties). I apologise for wrongly attributing to Eric emails CCd to me, whereas I was referring to Joe Baptista. In the email I did in fact email the list AND (and only) Joe, BUT in the body of the email errouneously referred to Eric and thereafter the name stuck in my mind and I repeated the error. I do apologise to Eric for any inconvenience caused. I am conveyed that to Eric in a reply to an email from him on that subject. I would however like to refer to my earlier email below and include a point 5 that reads as follows: 5. Using the "Reply to All" function, therefore emailing a former poster's personally CC'd recipients shall equally contitute an act of unsilicited emailing, i.e., spam. Put differently, if a member of the list decides to CC any of his acquaintances, that does not entitle another member to include those members in his/ her reply/ comment/ reaction. Please read points 1 to 4 below (taking into account that the name Eric in fact refers to Joe: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rui Correia Date: 2009/8/20 Subject: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Jeffrey and Eric Apologies to others, but this is pertinent as we are now engaged in the exercise of redefining list participation rules. 1. I am a subscriber to the list, therefore there is no need to CC me or any other subscriber. 2. Email that is sent unsolicited is the primary criterion of what constitutes spam. Sending spam is against the current rules (and the proposed new rules). You are therefore in breach of the rules. The recipient informing the sender that the mail is unwelcome merely constitutes an aggraving factor. 3. Any one is free to further disseminate list debates/ discussions to external interested parties by means of CC/ BCC/ FWD whenever one has reason to believe that the recipient(s) will welcome receiving such posting(s). 4. Depending on applicability, anyone resorting to CCing when that person's posting rights have been suspended is guilty of contravening the suspension. In view of the above, I am asking you one last time - STOP CCing me. I trust that the above is in order. Rui 2009/8/20 Jeffrey A. Williams > Rui and all, > > > > I would think that the IGC/IGF would welcome anyone to the discussion > that is CC'ed if the discussion > > is open and transparent in accordance with UN and IGC charter. After all > the issues discussed are of, > > or do directly or indirectly the global public do they not? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia > Sent: Aug 19, 2009 8:22 AM > To: Joe Baptista , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: > [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] > > Dear Joe > > I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, > he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part > of a discussion or not. > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > >> Hi Rui: >> >> I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this >> list. The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list >> the cc is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply >> - the response goes directly to the poster and not the list. >> >> Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to >> ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list >> admins - not with me. >> >> regards >> joe baptista >> >> >> >> On 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: >>> >>> Dear Eric >>> >>> I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no >>> need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. >>> Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>> act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at >>>>> present Internet Governance is a child. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The >>>> education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this >>>> reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet >>>> governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe >>>> the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the >>>> Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - >>>> http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. >>>> >>>> If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the >>>> Internet always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol >>>> evolves - then they would be seeking less government reliance on the >>>> internet and they would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most >>>> of the infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - >>>> DNSSEC a public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. >>>> >>>> This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious >>>> about protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask >>>> legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way >>>> to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more >>>> wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. >>>> It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos >>>> et mutamur en illis. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> joe baptista >>>> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to the Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> >> Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > Regards, > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Aug 20 06:48:43 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:48:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 10:05:03 on Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Rui Correia writes >3. Any one is free to further disseminate list debates/ discussions to >external interested parties by means of CC/ BCC/ FWD whenever one has >reason to believe that the recipient(s) will welcome receiving such >posting(s). As a matter of good practice [for all lists], if you CC a list-message to a colleague who isn't a list-member, then you are tempting them to also reply to the list (which will bounce). It is much better to FWD such messages individually, so the recipient doesn't fall into that trap. Putting list-members (who are generally easy to identify) on the CC list is simply untidy, unnecessary and bad netiquette. Although I wouldn't use the word Spam, as that has other connotations. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Aug 20 13:20:38 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:20:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > Putting list-members (who are generally easy to identify) on the CC list ... I'm using Gmail. When I Reply' , the To: line has the list address, plus the address of the individual who posted, Roland, (which I just deleted). When I Reply-to-all, in addition are all the addresses on the CC line. There are consequences for various list configurations. Perhaps the governance list default should be changed to only reply to the list? Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Aug 20 13:58:37 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:58:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8AE2CB1C-6B75-4E17-AD2A-EF3413EE3110@psg.com> Hi Sylvia. On 20 Aug 2009, at 13:20, Sylvia Caras wrote: > There are consequences for various list configurations. Perhaps the > governance list default should be changed to only reply to the list? There have been lots of conversations on this in the past on many lists including this one i think. and after reading them all, ok not all, it is hard to know what the best solution is. - Sometimes someone wants to reply only to the person who wrote the email but if the list is set to 'reply to list,' they then write something to the whole list that sometimes embarrasses them greatly - Sometimes someone wants to send something to the list and if the list is set to 'reply to sender' only, they have to resend it. Less embarrassing, but if the sender doesn't realize what happened, something that she or he felt was important to say might not get said. So both of these options have a downside (like most choices i find). Currently the list is set in a default mode, which leaves it up to the individual mailer and user to figure out what to do. In any of the options, it is a good habit to get into (one i constantly try to move towards myself - having made all of the errors one can imagine making in addressing email) of always double or triple checking the headers to make sure that the message is doing where you want it to go. But of course we all forget to do that from time to time. Having said all of this, if this list comes to a consensus someday on which way they want the list to function, it is trivial to change it. For now it is in the default setting. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 20 21:01:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Apologies - We don't need no stinkin Apologies - wrk to be done In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <729299.85728.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Rui,   I am embarrassed. In my multicultural training and learning it is my bad to have you apologize.  We must always take responsibility for our own role in any confusion.   But I am very pleased that at my expense more open and transparent common courtesy can have a platform for reminding us. Ours is not perfection to obtain but to strive for.   I met this AM with some very wilderness adventurer types at UC Santa Barbara.  As the space program has helped us to understand so much in common useage of technologies these men and women, especially my colleagues involved in Wilderness EMT are teaching me a great deal about remote emergency comms.  Here we rage against the machine and its intrusion into declared wilderness areas -- but we must govern our own actions to provide the most optimum Internet Access when required to save lives. Perhaps with discovering the work these fine people are doing we can better provide for remote access of information in developing areas. Theirs is not a money issue but an environmental one.   Now I am up the Coast at Berkeley and pleased to be finding radical young lawyers in training all fired up about IP trying to move in on common Internet useage in the college arena.  Were are breaking -- going for a sunset hike and then Hunan's infamous Chinese and arguments regarding accepting money and from who to escalate the fight.  Standard faire for the forming of Governmental controls over out of control multinational megacorps.   This stuff makes who is ccing who look like dancing in a geriatric nursing home!   It is good to note that common courtesy is becoming a necessary code in transmissions critical to lifesaving.  And that young professionals are donating time and energy and really caring about Internet Governance. --- On Thu, 8/20/09, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: "Eric Dierker" , "Joe Baptista" , "Jeffrey A. Williams" Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 8:05 AM Dear All My earlier email refers (CCd only to involved parties). I apologise for wrongly attributing to Eric emails CCd to me, whereas I was referring to Joe Baptista. In the email I did in fact email the list AND (and only) Joe, BUT in the body of the email errouneously referred to Eric and thereafter the name stuck in my mind and I repeated the error. I do apologise to Eric for any inconvenience caused. I am conveyed that to Eric in a reply to an email from him on that subject. I would however like to refer to my earlier email below and include a point 5 that reads as follows: 5. Using the "Reply to All" function, therefore emailing a former poster's personally CC'd recipients shall equally contitute an act of unsilicited emailing, i.e., spam. Put differently, if a member of the list decides to CC any of his acquaintances, that does not entitle another member to include those members in his/ her reply/ comment/ reaction. Please read points 1 to 4 below (taking into account that the name Eric in fact refers to Joe: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rui Correia Date: 2009/8/20 Subject: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Jeffrey and Eric Apologies to others, but this is pertinent as we are now engaged in the exercise of redefining list participation rules. 1. I am a subscriber to the list, therefore there is no need to CC me or any other subscriber. 2. Email that is sent unsolicited is the primary criterion of what constitutes spam. Sending spam is against the current rules (and the proposed new rules). You are therefore in breach of the rules. The recipient informing the sender that the mail is unwelcome merely constitutes an aggraving factor. 3. Any one is free to further disseminate list debates/ discussions to external interested parties by means of CC/ BCC/ FWD whenever one has reason to believe that the recipient(s) will welcome receiving such posting(s). 4. Depending on applicability, anyone resorting to CCing when that person's posting rights have been suspended is guilty of contravening the suspension.   In view of the above, I am asking you one last time - STOP CCing me. I trust that the above is in order. Rui 2009/8/20 Jeffrey A. Williams Rui and all,     I would think that the IGC/IGF would welcome anyone to the discussion that is CC'ed if the discussion is open and transparent in accordance with UN and IGC charter.  After all the issues discussed are of, or do directly or indirectly the global public do they not? -----Original Message----- From: Rui Correia Sent: Aug 19, 2009 8:22 AM To: Joe Baptista , governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] Dear Joe I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part of a discussion or not. Regards, Rui 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista Hi Rui: I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this list. The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list the cc is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply - the response goes directly to the poster and not the list. Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list admins - not with me. regards joe baptista On 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: Dear Eric I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. Yours Rui  2009/8/19 Joe Baptista On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at present Internet Governance is a child. No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the Internet always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol evolves - then they would be seeking less government reliance on the internet and they would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most of the infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - DNSSEC a public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious about protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur en illis. regards joe baptista Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ----------------------------------------------------------------   Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)      Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç Regards,   Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Aug 21 07:02:01 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:02:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Apologies - We don't need no stinkin Apologies - wrk In-Reply-To: <729299.85728.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <729299.85728.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050908210402p2d4d5a99rf801563570fd0eb1@mail.gmail.com> Applause from it happens to be the U.N. Headquarters / NY (Internationally) venue. Yesterday some of these, well - related, matters were discussed in mix of Economic & Social Council / Dept. of Public Info. settings*. As an individual, I'd say cultural netiquette "standards" are always interesting to ponder and discuss. One netizen's blather may be another one's boon. Eric et al, you will never post too amply for this one reader, but lately I have been wondering if it could be to your taste to give us links to your materials otherwise than all instream, though for heavens sakes not asking for twitter treats or bloggosurfs because too scattered or scattering. Unless you would want that. Btw, do you have a blog? The above is my personal view. Best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing*, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. *Respectful Interfaces*. . For. I.D. only : Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.. World Education Fellowship. 2007 GAID Nominee. Internet ARPANet forward. Other Affiliations on Request. * (as being of California birth I testify your geographic perches may be all around more exciting) On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Rui, > > I am embarrassed. In my multicultural training and learning it is my bad to > have you apologize. We must always take responsibility for our own role in > any confusion. > > But I am very pleased that at my expense more open and transparent common > courtesy can have a platform for reminding us. Ours is not perfection to > obtain but to strive for. > > I met this AM with some very wilderness adventurer types at UC Santa > Barbara. As the space program has helped us to understand so much in common > useage of technologies these men and women, especially my colleagues > involved in Wilderness EMT are teaching me a great deal about remote > emergency comms. Here we rage against the machine and its intrusion into > declared wilderness areas -- but we must govern our own actions to provide > the most optimum Internet Access when required to save lives. Perhaps with > discovering the work these fine people are doing we can better provide for > remote access of information in developing areas. Theirs is not a money > issue but an environmental one. > > Now I am up the Coast at Berkeley and pleased to be finding radical young > lawyers in training all fired up about IP trying to move in on common > Internet useage in the college arena. Were are breaking -- going for a > sunset hike and then Hunan's infamous Chinese and arguments regarding > accepting money and from who to escalate the fight. Standard faire for the > forming of Governmental controls over out of control multinational > megacorps. > > This stuff makes who is ccing who look like dancing in a geriatric nursing > home! > > It is good to note that common courtesy is becoming a necessary code in > transmissions critical to lifesaving. And that young professionals are > donating time and energy and really caring about Internet Governance. > > --- On Thu, 8/20/09, Rui Correia wrote: > > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is > SPAM [was Stop CCing me] > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: "Eric Dierker" , "Joe Baptista" < > baptista at publicroot.org>, "Jeffrey A. Williams" > Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 8:05 AM > > > Dear All > > My earlier email refers (CCd only to involved parties). > > I apologise for wrongly attributing to Eric emails CCd to me, whereas I was > referring to Joe Baptista. In the email I did in fact email the list AND > (and only) Joe, BUT in the body of the email errouneously referred to Eric > and thereafter the name stuck in my mind and I repeated the error. I do > apologise to Eric for any inconvenience caused. > > I am conveyed that to Eric in a reply to an email from him on that subject. > > I would however like to refer to my earlier email below and include a point > 5 that reads as follows: > > 5. Using the "Reply to All" function, therefore emailing a former poster's > personally CC'd recipients shall equally contitute an act of unsilicited > emailing, i.e., spam. Put differently, if a member of the list decides to CC > any of his acquaintances, that does not entitle another member to include > those members in his/ her reply/ comment/ reaction. > > Please read points 1 to 4 below (taking into account that the name Eric in > fact refers to Joe: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rui Correia > Date: 2009/8/20 > Subject: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is SPAM [was Stop CCing me] > To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" , > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Jeffrey and Eric > > Apologies to others, but this is pertinent as we are now engaged in the > exercise of redefining list participation rules. > > 1. I am a subscriber to the list, therefore there is no need to CC me or > any other subscriber. > 2. Email that is sent unsolicited is the primary criterion of what > constitutes spam. Sending spam is against the current rules (and the > proposed new rules). You are therefore in breach of the rules. The recipient > informing the sender that the mail is unwelcome merely constitutes an > aggraving factor. > 3. Any one is free to further disseminate list debates/ discussions to > external interested parties by means of CC/ BCC/ FWD whenever one has reason > to believe that the recipient(s) will welcome receiving such posting(s). > 4. Depending on applicability, anyone resorting to CCing when that person's > posting rights have been suspended is guilty of contravening the suspension. > > > In view of the above, I am asking you one last time - STOP CCing me. > > I trust that the above is in order. > > Rui > > > 2009/8/20 Jeffrey A. Williams > > > > Rui and all, > > I would think that the IGC/IGF would welcome anyone to the discussion > that is CC'ed if the discussion > is open and transparent in accordance with UN and IGC charter. After all > the issues discussed are of, > or do directly or indirectly the global public do they not? > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Correia > Sent: Aug 19, 2009 8:22 AM > To: Joe Baptista , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: STOP CCing me: [was Child Porn in Internet governance Re: > [governance] Monroe Doctrin for Cyberspace?] > > Dear Joe > > I know how the list works. However, you will see that whenever Eric posts, > he adds a whole range of people to the CC field - whether you have been part > of a discussion or not. > > Regards, > > Rui > > > 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > > Hi Rui: > > I don't think Eric cced you. In any case - that is the nature of this list. > The problem is in the reply-to headers. When one replies to the list the cc > is automatic - as in this case when I reply to all. If you just reply - the > response goes directly to the poster and not the list. > > Hope that clarifies the issue for you. The best way to fix this is to > ensure the reply-to governance bit is set and that control is with the list > admins - not with me. > > regards > joe baptista > > > > > > > On 8/19/09, Rui Correia wrote: > Dear Eric > > I've been on the governance list since its inception - there really is no > need for you to cc me - and possibly others - when you post to the list. > Your gesture is duly acknowledged, but really not necessary. > > Yours > > Rui > > > 2009/8/19 Joe Baptista > > > > > On 8/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > > act childish in the seeking of internet governance, which is why at present > Internet Governance is a child. > > No - I would not say child. More like a prepubescent teenager. The > education process is at best very slow. I think I have returned to this > reasoning on a numerous occasions. Many people involved in internet > governance have no idea what the Internet is. They know the buzz - believe > the fiction and completely miss the point and are amazed to find out the > Internet is very dangerous. I was the first to point that out in 1995 - > http://bit.ly/Rp0fB - and time has proved me correct on this. > > If Internet governance people had any idea just how dangerous the Internet > always was - is and will be more so as time passes and protocol evolves - > then they would be seeking less government reliance on the internet and they > would be warning people on the dangers awaiting them. Most of the > infrastructure is completely insecure. DNS over UDP is a mess - DNSSEC a > public relations disaster. And thats just two little protocols. > > This is an example of a child porn issue. If people here are serious about > protecting children from predators and porn on the Internet then ask > legislative assmblies to legislate children off the Internet. The only way > to protect them is by cutting the source of the danger. > > Unfortunately - as I said what I see of Internet governance here is more > wide eyed teenagers. All full of hope but completely unaware of the dangers. > It takes time to grow up - or else become irrelevant - tempora mutantur, nos > et mutamur en illis. > > regards > joe baptista > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > > > > Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > Regards, > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 21 08:26:03 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:26:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4gveh6MbJpjKFAOp@perry.co.uk> In message , at 10:20:38 on Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Sylvia Caras writes >> Putting list-members (who are generally easy to identify) on the CC list ... > >I'm using Gmail. When I Reply' , the To: line has the list address, >plus the address of the individual who posted, Roland, (which I just >deleted). When I Reply-to-all, in addition are all the addresses on >the CC line. My client differs (and is more consistent with what I'd call "traditional-values") in that it has two buttons "Reply" and "Follow-up". The former is used if you want to address the individuals, the latter if you want to address the list. It doesn't have an option of "Reply to all" (which would be "Both reply and follow-up"), because that's regarded as evil (confusing) as per my earlier comments; and users really do need to be encouraged make their mind up who their audience is. >There are consequences for various list configurations. Perhaps the >governance list default should be changed to only reply to the list? There's clearly an interaction between the way a list is configured, and the way people's email clients are designed. My own preference is to keep things simple. This is a list, and replies should go to the list. If people want to make off-list replies I suggest they also train themselves (which helps the recipient too, when it arrives) to put the words [off-list] at the beginning. That breaks the routine enough, that it brings a reminder to check exactly who you are sending to. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 21 09:51:37 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:51:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Registration now open for 16/17 Sept in Geneva Message-ID: http://info.intgovforum.org/regsept.php -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From icggov at johnlevine.com Fri Aug 21 12:52:23 2009 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 21 Aug 2009 16:52:23 -0000 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is In-Reply-To: <4gveh6MbJpjKFAOp@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <20090821165223.83499.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Copies of list messages are a religious topic, and like every other religious topic, people's positions are not amenable to rational argument. When replying to me, please be sure to send mail BOTH to me and to the list, since the two copies get sorted differently. It is very very important that everyone in the world remember my personal preferences and do it my way, because it would be beneath me to spend ten minutes adjusting my mail setup to adapt to anything else. R's, John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Aug 21 13:02:07 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:02:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited In-Reply-To: <20090821165223.83499.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20090821165223.83499.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: It would probably be best everyone stopped using their email software entirely and simply followed any discussion via the excellent archive :-) Duh... Adam At 4:52 PM +0000 8/21/09, John Levine wrote: >Copies of list messages are a religious topic, and like every other >religious topic, people's positions are not amenable to rational >argument. > >When replying to me, please be sure to send mail BOTH to me and to the >list, since the two copies get sorted differently. It is very very >important that everyone in the world remember my personal preferences >and do it my way, because it would be beneath me to spend ten minutes >adjusting my mail setup to adapt to anything else. > >R's, >John >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Fri Aug 21 14:08:19 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:08:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is In-Reply-To: <4gveh6MbJpjKFAOp@perry.co.uk> References: <4gveh6MbJpjKFAOp@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > There's clearly an interaction between the way a list is configured, and the > way people's email clients are designed. > I didn't realize that, and wonder if there is/was a standard. I've used Eudora and Thunderbird off-line and now am reading and usually replying online. Gmail is my first use of sending from a web-based service. Most of what I know about list management is as a LISTSERV administrator. This is very interesting. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 21 15:19:53 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:19:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is In-Reply-To: References: <4gveh6MbJpjKFAOp@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <+JPPrywZNvjKFAtw@perry.co.uk> In message , at 11:08:19 on Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Sylvia Caras writes >> There's clearly an interaction between the way a list is configured, and the >> way people's email clients are designed. > >I didn't realize that, and wonder if there is/was a standard. The closest I know of is the functionality I described in my own client, which is not especially famous, but has been developed (mainly in the 90's) by people who cared deeply about such issues. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 21 21:37:58 2009 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: <747283.12304.qm@web34604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://domains.extrusionmedia.com/QAX0Px9oz5.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 22 01:58:31 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Complex Networks, ccing and talking too much. Message-ID: <186090.11028.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Very interesting WiFi exploration today.  College town. Went to Starbucks. They charge for WiFi.  Went to public library, must have a card to use WiFi.  Went to another café/ It was auto – activated with special codes through the fully connected cash register including time limit per $$ spent.   Parking permitted was by card, through meters, connected to cardmember services and internet wired.  Phone from work forwarded all to my mobile – An IP gig out of 0ne Wilshire all automated from Bangor Maine to San Diego, a call to the Philipines and one to New Delhi.   What a cool internet infrastructure and all seamless and on demand/command for almost nothing!!   But what reminded me most of this list was the mighty freeway networks – Business commuters, commercial delivery, Overland longhaulers, Grandmas, tourists, school buses.   And we all got to where we were going just fine by following some strict rules of the road: But mainly it all worked out because we follow simple courtesy toward our fellow networkers and are patient and accepting of the differences. Complex, simple, physical or ethereal, communicative or transportive,,, all networks work better when we make our intentions known, act openly and with courtesy and most important, do not try to direct everyone and respect differences.  Working on skills and remaining open to new methods and old ideas, make them really great.   Good manners and good netiquette will be followed on this list, not by mandating and "governing" but by constant examination and practice, by open discussions and by people not leaving or quitting or being excluded on every offense. Always remembering our actions are often more rude than our speech. This would be respectful interface and a globalization I can finally support. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 22 02:11:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Courtesy and list Netiquette: was:CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <575819.85189.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I suspect you are not alone Sylvia.  I think we are due for an upgrade in Netiquette.  Somethings like bandwidth useage and mobile units and brand new filters and netservices are changing the landscape. Times have changed since 2000 and our first busy lists. Before silverware and glass -- they must have had totally different eating etiquette. Before additives and refrigerators they must have had extremely strict cooking rules. Major differences between Kosher and Chopsticks and Curing and canning .... Elbows on or off, burping and when not to, politics and religion at the dinner table?   This educational and explanable thread is most helpful in governance.  No not someone getting a nose out of joint over a cc or 3 or 6 posts or cross whatever, but talking about it so we can better understand and act better ourselves.  Good governance does not require decrees but rather examples. --- On Fri, 8/21/09, Sylvia Caras wrote: From: Sylvia Caras Subject: Re: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 6:08 PM On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > There's clearly an interaction between the way a list is configured, and the > way people's email clients are designed. > I didn't realize that, and wonder if there is/was a standard.  I've used Eudora and Thunderbird off-line and now am reading and usually replying online.   Gmail is my first use of sending from a web-based service.  Most of what I know about list management is as a LISTSERV administrator.  This is very interesting. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Aug 22 06:12:59 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:12:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Courtesy and list Netiquette: was:CORRECTION: List In-Reply-To: <575819.85189.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <575819.85189.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric wrote "Good governance does not require decrees but rather examples". I agree and add that 'examples that work'. Decrees are bedfellows to dictatorship as their imposing phrases show. "politics and religion at the dinner table?" Well I do not see any difference as the two have as objective: acquiring some power. When politicians lie to get power and earn our monies, religious people cajole us to "give a stipend to God" thus taking away our money that is later on invested in business ventures. Politics and religion are all business entities anyway. Cheers Aaron On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I suspect you are not alone Sylvia. I think we are due for an upgrade in > Netiquette. Somethings like bandwidth useage and mobile units and brand new > filters and netservices are changing the landscape. Times have changed since > 2000 and our first busy lists. Before silverware and glass -- they must have > had totally different eating etiquette. Before additives and refrigerators > they must have had extremely strict cooking rules. Major differences between > Kosher and Chopsticks and Curing and canning .... Elbows on or off, burping > and when not to, politics and religion at the dinner table? > > This educational and explanable thread is most helpful in governance. No > not someone getting a nose out of joint over a cc or 3 or 6 posts or cross > whatever, but talking about it so we can better understand and act better > ourselves. Good governance does not require decrees but rather examples. > > --- On *Fri, 8/21/09, Sylvia Caras * wrote: > > > From: Sylvia Caras > Subject: Re: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing > is > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 6:08 PM > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Roland > Perry> > wrote: > > > > There's clearly an interaction between the way a list is configured, and > the > > way people's email clients are designed. > > > > I didn't realize that, and wonder if there is/was a standard. I've > used Eudora and Thunderbird off-line and now am reading and usually > replying online. Gmail is my first use of sending from a web-based > service. Most of what I know about list management is as a LISTSERV > administrator. This is very interesting. > > Sylvia > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 10:20:42 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:20:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] Role of CSTD in the IGF review process. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f70908220720n1445ce98kc0c9a28e0bbf4e1f@mail.gmail.com> Being an active participant of the UNCSTD this year in Geneva, I would like to share that the CSTD members were not out of touch of the IG issues and the draft resolutions that were prepared and then approved from the committee's members. This committee was also chaired by a member who is an active member of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group MAG respectively and the deliberations made the members of the IGC were reflected in Markus's report that he read out and presented to the CSTD from the IGC Secretariat respectively. How governments nominate their members to represent their countries (Foreign Ministers or ICT Ministers) is solely upon member state countries of the UN and I believe that IGF or the ECOSOC has no influence over that and I think they shouldn't either. Yes you can communicate with your country's government and check into the issue but as far as other countries are concerned would be beyond the reach of the afore mentioned bodies. On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello All, > > I was at the European Summer School of Internet Governance at Meissen > recently and happened to have an informal conversation with one of the > faculty members who happens to be an individual who values the IGF as much > as we all do. > > Most of us in this list have contributed to a positive review of the IGF and > almost all of us believe that the IGF should continue. We have given our > inputs, but the process of decision making requires inputs from the CSTD of > ECOSOC. > > CSTD  ( http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4239&lang=1 ) has > to make a recommendation to the UN to renew the mandate for the IGF. So, in > a sense this is an important and crucial step in the review process. > > The CSTD is a body with representatives named by the foreign ministries of > the governments. Tradionally IGF participation is from the ICT ministries of > most governments. So, what is closely followed by the ICT ministries might > only have been very broadly followed by the Foreign / External affairs > ministries. > > What needs to be done is to impress upon the foreign minsties / CSTD > nominees of our Governments that the mandate for IGF needs to be renewed. > Some of the participants of this list are well connected. Would it be > possible to think of reaching out to the CSTD delegations through the > Foreign Ministries with help from the ICT Ministries? > > This is a bit of a diplomatic exercise that is necessary. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > India. > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 22 10:31:25 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Courtesy and list Netiquette: Back to list rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <203119.51814.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Marvelous,   I like to combine all three of the below. (please see Paul's thread on rights -- similar just from a different tac accross the same bay)   Governance -- cannot be imposed. Our mere use of the word, excludes top down decrees.   Politics -- What we refer to most generally as political is either Marx's pablum for the masses, or a power grab due to http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A00EEDC1739E233A25756C2A9629C946496D6CF Ladd's Nuetrality. From Plato to today little changes.   Religion -- is like governance and politics. If we allow it from the top - down.  (no not that top- that is spiritualism) and we do not participate and remain silent or indifferent or Nuetral it turns into a big ball of ----. If we allow for exclusion, elitism and "show me the money" rules then we are back to shirking our duties in governance.    Therefor I say that if we must have rules, then we must have them to protect the individual and not some holier than thou professors grand scheme for the betterment of society.  Let courtesy and netiquette protect the group and goals ---  But only let individuals be protected by rules. --- On Sat, 8/22/09, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Subject: Re: [governance] Courtesy and list Netiquette: was:CORRECTION: List To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 10:12 AM Eric wrote "Good governance does not require decrees but rather examples". I agree and add that 'examples that work'. Decrees are bedfellows to dictatorship as their imposing phrases show. "politics and religion at the dinner table?" Well I do not see any difference as the two have as objective: acquiring some power. When politicians lie to get power and earn our monies, religious people cajole us to "give a stipend to God" thus taking away our money that is later on invested in business ventures. Politics and religion are all business entities anyway. Cheers Aaron On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: I suspect you are not alone Sylvia.  I think we are due for an upgrade in Netiquette.  Somethings like bandwidth useage and mobile units and brand new filters and netservices are changing the landscape. Times have changed since 2000 and our first busy lists. Before silverware and glass -- they must have had totally different eating etiquette. Before additives and refrigerators they must have had extremely strict cooking rules. Major differences between Kosher and Chopsticks and Curing and canning .... Elbows on or off, burping and when not to, politics and religion at the dinner table?   This educational and explanable thread is most helpful in governance.  No not someone getting a nose out of joint over a cc or 3 or 6 posts or cross whatever, but talking about it so we can better understand and act better ourselves.  Good governance does not require decrees but rather examples. --- On Fri, 8/21/09, Sylvia Caras wrote: From: Sylvia Caras Subject: Re: [governance] CORRECTION: List Posting Rules: Unsolicited CCing is To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 6:08 PM On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > There's clearly an interaction between the way a list is configured, and the > way people's email clients are designed. > I didn't realize that, and wonder if there is/was a standard.  I've used Eudora and Thunderbird off-line and now am reading and usually replying online.   Gmail is my first use of sending from a web-based service.  Most of what I know about list management is as a LISTSERV administrator.  This is very interesting. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 12:55:14 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:25:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Role of CSTD in the IGF review process. In-Reply-To: <701af9f70908220720n1445ce98kc0c9a28e0bbf4e1f@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70908220720n1445ce98kc0c9a28e0bbf4e1f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Fouad Bajwa, On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Being an active participant of the UNCSTD this year in Geneva, I would > like to share that the CSTD members were not out of touch of the IG > issues Thank you for your response. I do understand that CSTD is fairly well informed on IGF matters. I didn't say that the CSTD members would be out of touch with IG issues. It is just that the IGF happens to be one of the several issues that the CSTD is concerned about, so the members of the CSTD might not have followed IGF deliberations in different forums as closely as ICT ministries who are more directly concerned about IGF would have. > and the draft resolutions that were prepared and then approved > from the committee's members. > This committee was also chaired by a > member who is an active member of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory > Group MAG respectively and the deliberations made the members of the > IGC were reflected in Markus's report that he read out and presented > to the CSTD from the IGC Secretariat respectively. > > How governments nominate their members to represent their countries > (Foreign Ministers or ICT Ministers) is solely upon member state > countries of the UN and I believe that IGF or the ECOSOC has no > influence over that and I think they shouldn't either. No, neither the IGF nor ECOSOC would find it appropriate to influence how the Member States nominate their representatives, nor would be in a position to suggest that they may be nominated from ICT ministries. These are internal affairs of the Member States and UN or any of its organs wouldn't interfere. Nor did I say that we should ask the member states to change this. That would be too much. What I suggested is that ICT ministries could work to share their observations and positive views with the Ministry that has nominated a representative to CSTD - in case it happens to be a different Ministry. > Yes you can communicate with your country's government and check into > the issue Our government has a very positive view about the IGF and is indeed very thorough in its approach. > > Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > I was at the European Summer School of Internet Governance at Meissen > > recently and happened to have an informal conversation with one of the > > faculty members who happens to be an individual who values the IGF as > much > > as we all do. > > > > Most of us in this list have contributed to a positive review of the IGF > and > > almost all of us believe that the IGF should continue. We have given our > > inputs, but the process of decision making requires inputs from the CSTD > of > > ECOSOC. > > > > CSTD ( http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4239&lang=1 ) > has > > to make a recommendation to the UN to renew the mandate for the IGF. So, > in > > a sense this is an important and crucial step in the review process. > > > > The CSTD is a body with representatives named by the foreign ministries > of > > the governments. Tradionally IGF participation is from the ICT ministries > of > > most governments. So, what is closely followed by the ICT ministries > might > > only have been very broadly followed by the Foreign / External affairs > > ministries. > > > > What needs to be done is to impress upon the foreign minsties / CSTD > > nominees of our Governments that the mandate for IGF needs to be renewed. > > Some of the participants of this list are well connected. Would it be > > possible to think of reaching out to the CSTD delegations through the > > Foreign Ministries with help from the ICT Ministries? > > > > This is a bit of a diplomatic exercise that is necessary. > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > India. > > Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 22 16:34:21 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:34:21 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Courtesy and list Netiquette: was:CORRECTION: List Message-ID: <4773869.1250973261439.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 22 17:10:37 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:10:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Complex Networks, ccing and talking too much. Message-ID: <888241.1250975437802.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 22 19:13:03 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Complex Networks, ccing and talking too much. In-Reply-To: <888241.1250975437802.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <922831.39732.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Perhaps you missread my dribble. No one should be proud of their own failings.  No one with a college degree should engage in illiteracy. No one who is proud of their heritage should disgrace their family. Good manners and etiquette are not dirty words. There is no custom that is disgusting -- just different. These rules are not laws they are good tools to guide oneself.  Nothing is wrong with ignorance unless it is intentional. Bad manners are not bad unless done by one who knows better. A mark of intelligence is being sharp witted without offending.   These concepts are as clear as exclusionary practices and prejudice. There is much wrong with the person in a superior position not being open and transparent and honest. That is not merely bad manners, that is morally wrong and intellectually corrupt. --- On Sat, 8/22/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Complex Networks, ccing and talking too much. To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" , "Voice of Freedom" , ian.peter at ianpeter.com Cc: anja at cis-india.org, avri at acm.org, CWallace at cygnacom.com, ca at rits.org.br, carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm, charityg at diplomacy.edu, aheineman at ntia.doc.gov, gpaque at gmail.com, jam at jacquelinemorris.com, jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu, baptista at publicroot.org, kalston at syr.edu, lmcknigh at syr.edu, ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com, dogwallah at gmail.com, mueller at syr.edu, nhklein at gmx.net, lehto.paul at gmail.com, robin at ipjustice.org, roland at internetpolicyagency.com, goldstein.roxana at gmail.com, correia.rui at gmail.com, isolatedn at gmail.com, suerie_moon at yahoo.com, vanda at uol.com.br, wcurrie at apc.org, yehudakatz at mailinator.com Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 9:10 PM #yiv294947553 {font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}#yiv294947553 p{margin:0px;} Eric and all,     FWIW, for far too many years, nearly 4 decades now the American people have been far too apathetic and talking too little, and when talking saying only slightly more, and getting better addressed when talking far more largely in part as a result of the Internet, especially in the past 5 or 6 years.  Silence may be golden, but it is also empty and far too often when self imposed or imposed by others for various reasons/excuses, leaves progress to flounder and often die a slow death.  Such is not a governance healthy thing.     I say speak loudly, boldly and often if your a mind to, and let no man/woman dissuade you of otherwise lest your voice never be heard, you participation be neglagable, and your future, and perhaps the future of your fellow man be stagnant.  Let not the Miltons of the world dictate your voice, your message, your ideas, your manner for they are the pervayers of stagnation, hate, and negativity.  Such has no good place in the fellowship of man and mankind in this century. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker Sent: Aug 22, 2009 12:58 AM To: Voice of Freedom Subject: [governance] Complex Networks, ccing and talking too much. Very interesting WiFi exploration today.  College town. Went to Starbucks. They charge for WiFi.  Went to public library, must have a card to use WiFi.  Went to another café/ It was auto – activated with special codes through the fully connected cash register including time limit per $$ spent.   Parking permitted was by card, through meters, connected to cardmember services and internet wired.  Phone from work forwarded all to my mobile – An IP gig out of 0ne Wilshire all automated from Bangor Maine to San Diego , a call to the Philipines and one to New Delhi .   What a cool internet infrastructure and all seamless and on demand/command for almost nothing!!   But what reminded me most of this list was the mighty freeway networks – Business commuters, commercial delivery, Overland longhaulers, Grandmas, tourists, school buses.   And we all got to where we were going just fine by following some strict rules of the road: But mainly it all worked out because we follow simple courtesy toward our fellow networkers and are patient and accepting of the differences. Complex, simple, physical or ethereal, communicative or transportive,,, all networks work better when we make our intentions known, act openly and with courtesy and most important, do not try to direct everyone and respect differences.  Working on skills and remaining open to new methods and old ideas, make them really great. Good manners and good netiquette will be followed on this list, not by mandating and "governing" but by constant examination and practice, by open discussions and by people not leaving or quitting or being excluded on every offense. Always remembering our actions are often more rude than our speech. This would be respectful interface and a globalization I can finally support.   Regards,   Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -    Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 10:01:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:31:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC Message-ID: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Aug 23 11:42:06 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (katitza at datos-personales.org) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:42:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <79e282a438cfe28f0f052ec6917de2bf.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> I agree, Ginger. We should remember that some stakeholders would prefer to highlight only freedom of expression and dismiss privacy. We should always add privacy in this kind of discussion, including the tensions between privacy and freedom of expression that many international human rights groups has work on it. I do not think that this discussion is too late! Katitza > > > > > > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good > overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the > need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any > specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom > of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance > is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across > borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a > strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open > Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should > have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to > be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late > to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is > important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in > laying the groundwork for next year.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working > draft?
>
> Best, Ginger
>
>
> href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true
>
> >

WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in > Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter > messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing > that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used > Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist > government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing > role in political dissent.

>

**Now > governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts > to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of > information and the ability to communicate.**

>
> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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.roxana at gmail.com Sun Aug 23 11:53:35 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:53:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <79e282a438cfe28f0f052ec6917de2bf.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <79e282a438cfe28f0f052ec6917de2bf.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0908230853w6410de3ay7137351577bd7881@mail.gmail.com> I agree with you both, Ginger and Katitza! I've been collaborating -and still do :)- with the Freedom on the Net Project at Freedom House, and this is my persective, too. Freedom of expression and privacy all togheter. Regards, Roxana 2009/8/23 > I agree, Ginger. We should remember that some stakeholders would prefer to > highlight only freedom of expression and dismiss privacy. We should always > add privacy in this kind of discussion, including the tensions between > privacy and freedom of expression that many international human rights > groups has work on it. > > I do not think that this discussion is too late! > > Katitza > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good > > overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the > > need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any > > specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom > > of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance > > is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across > > borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a > > strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open > > Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should > > have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to > > be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late > > to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is > > important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in > > laying the groundwork for next year.
> >
> > Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working > > draft?
> >
> > Best, Ginger
> >
> >
> > > href=" > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true > "> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true >
> >
> > > >

WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in > > Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter > > messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing > > that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used > > Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist > > government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing > > role in political dissent.

> >

**Now > > governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts > > to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of > > information and the ability to communicate.**

> >
> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Aug 23 19:38:47 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (katitza at datos-personales.org) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:38:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f0908230853w6410de3ay7137351577bd7881@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <79e282a438cfe28f0f052ec6917de2bf.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> <4ca4162f0908230853w6410de3ay7137351577bd7881@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49f2a128c16cbfbba7214576bc35e8ca.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> Holas! I like how Bruce Schneier frame this discussion on Internet Censorship. China's actions as well as those similar actions held by Democratic governments around the world. The full article is here. See http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0908.html Here I highlight a few paragraphs: "China is the world's most successful Internet censor. While the Great Firewall of China isn't perfect, it effectively limits information flowing in and out of the country. But now the Chinese government is taking things one step further." (...) "Green Dam has many uses. It can police a list of forbidden Web sites. It can monitor a user's reading habits. It can even enlist the computer in some massive botnet attack, as part of a hypothetical future cyberwar." (...) China's actions may be extreme, but they're not unique. Democratic governments around the world -- Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom, for example -- are rushing to pass laws giving their police new powers of Internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell. (...) Many are passing data retention laws, forcing companies to keep information on their customers. Just recently, the German government proposed giving itself the power to censor the Internet. (...) "The United States is no exception. The 1994 CALEA law required phone companies to facilitate FBI eavesdropping, and since 2001, the NSA has built substantial eavesdropping systems in the United States. The government has repeatedly proposed Internet data retention laws, allowing surveillance into past activities as well as present." (...) "Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, and Secure Computing built Iran's surveillance infrastructure. U.S. companies helped build China's electronic police state. Twitter's anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents -- anonymity that many governments want to eliminate. Every year brings more Internet censorship and control -- not just in countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other free countries." The full article is here http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0908.html > I agree with you both, Ginger and Katitza! > I've been collaborating -and still do :)- with the Freedom on the Net > Project at Freedom House, and this is my persective, too. Freedom of > expression and privacy all togheter. > Regards, > Roxana > > > > 2009/8/23 > >> I agree, Ginger. We should remember that some stakeholders would prefer >> to >> highlight only freedom of expression and dismiss privacy. We should >> always >> add privacy in this kind of discussion, including the tensions between >> privacy and freedom of expression that many international human rights >> groups has work on it. >> >> I do not think that this discussion is too late! >> >> Katitza >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good >> > overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the >> > need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any >> > specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom >> > of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance >> > is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across >> > borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a >> > strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open >> > Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should >> > have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles >> to >> > be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too >> late >> > to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is >> > important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in >> > laying the groundwork for next year.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working >> > draft?
>> >
>> > Best, Ginger
>> >
>> >
>> > > > href=" >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true >> "> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true >>
>> >
>> > >> >

WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in >> > Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter >> > messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal >> policing >> > that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used >> > Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist >> > government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing >> > role in political dissent.

>> >

**Now >> > governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts >> > to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of >> > information and the ability to communicate.**

>> >
>> > >> > >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 23 20:28:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Truth in Statements was: Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC Message-ID: <208810.73517.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ginger,   Your double speak is a little hard to follow.  You wrote:   "I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom of expression and communication must be protected." (note the use of "protected"*    But as a co-coordinator of this list, you did nothing to correct this innaccurate attempt to limit my speech on this list: ***  It was public bullying that was clearly intended to wrongfully limit speech.   May I remind you that you are in a position of power, responsibility and trust to guide and set by example the Open and Free Speech of this list.  You have done nothing wrong per se.  You have just failed to do the right thing, which in "Governance" is a far far worse offense.**   I want to fully endorse and lend my support to this "Statement" of principles. But how can I when I know your actions make your words hollow and hypocritical?  I assume you will go and check my posts for a given 24hour period and find that no more than five were ever posted by me. That I violated no rules and that my netiquette was impeccable and that I was on topic.  (hopefully you will find that you can bend and apply the rules to either promote open speech or that you can apply them to promote limitation and worse.)   Then we will see the Mettle of this list and it's elected officials.   * Protected indicating action and statements by such action -- in our case words. **Notice the foot note in Ginger's quotation - to limit activity on line. *** [governance] Public warning to Erik Dierker Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:12 AM From: "Ian Peter" Add sender to Contacts To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" , "Ginger Paque" --- On Sun, 8/23/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 2:01 PM This article from "New Scientist" gives a good overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in laying the groundwork for next year. Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working draft? Best, Ginger http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing role in political dissent. **Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of information and the ability to communicate.** -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 23 20:55:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f0908230853w6410de3ay7137351577bd7881@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <19683.93919.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I agree here also.   I would ask that any paper positional statement be short and sweet. I already see the impetus moving away from freedom and into "too late" and timlines and the production of creating a piece.  I would like the "statement" to be one as such:   We promote and defend the principle that no rules or regulations should be promulgated, restricting the freedom of speech of the individual, until such time as it is assured that the individual Internet users have a bill of rights and legitimate representation in the creation of any aforesaid rules. --- On Sun, 8/23/09, Roxana Goldstein wrote: From: Roxana Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, katitza at datos-personales.org Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 3:53 PM I agree with you both, Ginger and Katitza! I've been collaborating -and still do :)- with the Freedom on the Net Project at Freedom House, and this is my persective, too. Freedom of expression and privacy all togheter. Regards, Roxana   2009/8/23 I agree, Ginger. We should remember that some stakeholders would prefer to highlight only freedom of expression and dismiss privacy. We should always add privacy in this kind of discussion, including the tensions between privacy and freedom of expression that many international human rights groups has work on it. I do not think that this discussion is too late! Katitza > > > > > > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good > overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the > need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any > specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom > of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance > is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across > borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a > strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open > Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should > have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to > be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late > to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is > important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in > laying the groundwork for next year.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working > draft?
>
> Best, Ginger
>
>
> href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true
>
> >

WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in > Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter > messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing > that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used > Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist > government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing > role in political dissent.

>

**Now > governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts > to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of > information and the ability to communicate.**

>
> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 23 21:16:25 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <79e282a438cfe28f0f052ec6917de2bf.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <656400.56534.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is a very important aspect.  There are some on this very list that want to limit free speech to only those people that they think they know.  Clearly this would require personal data being made private in order to gain access to a voice in our struggle for freedom of speech.  It is this type of invasion of privacy that is most hideous and hard to ferret out.   When freedom of speech is limited to those who divulge private information in order to buy that right and basic freedom (see: In particular 6.7.12 & 19 --  http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ ) we violate every tenet of inalienable human rights.   Our security in our persons is a cornerstone of our ability to make public what was private in order to create speech that is meaningful.  The adamant active protection of the concept that we must not, can not, and shall not give up one Right to receive another is paramount.   Without basic privacy we give away our ultimate power of freedom of thought.  It is in our privacy that we become who we are as individuals. It is in the nurturing of that individualism that we find all good in womankind and even mankind.   Paul Lehtos' pieces on Rights and Yahuda Katz's writings regarding same should be required reading here. Not for the correctness and  accuracy of their opines but to broaden and create a more understanding acceptance of these issues. (sorry for my pontithication -- and no those are not quotes but my own,,, I can blame no one) --- On Sun, 8/23/09, katitza at datos-personales.org wrote: From: katitza at datos-personales.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 3:42 PM I agree, Ginger. We should remember that some stakeholders would prefer to highlight only freedom of expression and dismiss privacy. We should always add privacy in this kind of discussion, including the tensions between privacy and freedom of expression that many international human rights groups has work on it. I do not think that this discussion is too late! Katitza > > > > > > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good > overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the > need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any > specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom > of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance > is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across > borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a > strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open > Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should > have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to > be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late > to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is > important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in > laying the groundwork for next year.
>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working > draft?
>
> Best, Ginger
>
>
> href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true
>
> >

WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in > Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter > messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing > that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used > Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist > government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing > role in political dissent.

>

**Now > governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts > to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of > information and the ability to communicate.**

>
> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 06:31:21 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:01:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter Message-ID: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-Posting Rules for the IGC-v4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71653 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-Posting Rules for the IGC-v4.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 68122 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 08:03:47 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:03:47 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <79e282a438cfe28f0f052ec6917de2bf.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <79e282a438cfe28f0f052ec6917de2bf.squirrel@webmail.datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70908240503r4e81d754v57c06e62490f5950@mail.gmail.com> Just to share with you how this happens in my region: This is the state of affairs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan A notification like this is usually issued by the regulator: http://pakistan451.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/PTA%20-%20Blocking%20of%20website%2025-4-06.pdf Global Voices Article: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2006/05/08/internet-censorship-in-pakistan/ Don’t Block the Blog Campaign http://help-pakistan.com/main/dont-block-the-blog/ Society Against Internet Censorship in Pakistan http://groups.google.com/group/AGABBIP Death penalty for ‘cyber-terrorists’ proposed http://pisa.org.pk/2008/11/08/death-penalty-cyber-crime-internet-law-pakistan-security-hacking-credit-card-fraud/ I think it is possible to counter such activities strategically as is the example from the Australian Government: Web censorship plan heads towards a dead end http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/02/26/1235237810486.html And our country is not alone at all: Italian secret internet censorship list, 287 site subset, 21 Jun 2009 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Italian_secret_internet_censorship_list,_287_site_subset,_21_Jun_2009 On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:42 PM, wrote: > I agree, Ginger. We should remember that some stakeholders would prefer to > highlight only freedom of expression and dismiss privacy. We should always > add privacy in this kind of discussion, including the tensions between > privacy and freedom of expression that many international human rights > groups has work on it. > > I do not think that this discussion is too late! > > Katitza > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> This article from "New Scientist" gives a good >> overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the >> need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any >> specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom >> of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance >> is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across >> borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a >> strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open >> Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should >> have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to >> be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late >> to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is >> important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in >> laying the groundwork for next year.
>>
>> Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working >> draft?
>>
>> Best, Ginger
>>
>>
>> > href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true
>>
>> >>

WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in >> Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter >> messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing >> that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used >> Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist >> government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing >> role in political dissent.

>>

**Now >> governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts >> to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of >> information and the ability to communicate.**

>>
>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From charityg at diplomacy.edu Mon Aug 24 12:15:12 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter In-Reply-To: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC you can vote. It says in the Charter that "*Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account*." The list of IGC members was last updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely appreciate any clarifications. Thanks! :) Regards, Charity On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Dear IGC members, > > A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please see full > details below and attached). > > IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment on the > list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would like to express. > > The Charter states that “The membership requirements for amending the > charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending > the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a > member for amending the charter." That list is at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. > > Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, please be > sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a good way to keep the > IGC on track by exercising your right and obligation to vote. > > Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm whether they > are a member of civil society. Only civil society members are entitled to > vote. You will be given a choice of "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your > agreement or non-agreement with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to > vote, please use the "abstain" option – that allows us to keep you on the > updated membership list as a current member. > > The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for two weeks > (until September 15th). An announcement of the results will be made as soon > as possible thereafter. You should expect to receive a ballot paper before > Wednesday next week (September 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you > are entitled to vote and have not received a ballot paper by then please > contact me directly. > > Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the task of > running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. > > Regards, > > Ginger Paque > for > Ginger Paque and Ian Peter > IGC Co-coordinators > > > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > will be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the > charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to > deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future. Part > of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole > responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having any clear > guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > > > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. > > Any decision to remove someone from the list will > > call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 12:26:00 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: requirement In-Reply-To: References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A92BF18.9020203@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Mon Aug 24 12:26:47 2009 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:26:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter In-Reply-To: References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3FA77364-1292-45D1-9011-9FF316DBB72E@st-kilda.org> On 24 Aug 2009, at 17:15, Charity Gamboa wrote: > I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I > assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the > IGC you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is > subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election > will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last > updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. > Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a > member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely > appreciate any clarifications. Apparently that is not the case for changes of Charter, merely for elections. Which I have to say I find more than very disappointing. Is there some justification that anyone would like to make for this state of affairs? Regards Fearghas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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.souter at runbox.com Mon Aug 24 12:40:23 2009 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:40:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: In-Reply-To: <4A92BF18.9020203@gmail.com> References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> <4A92BF18.9020203@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger: Your answer raises a separate question. Do you mean here that only people who actually voted in the last coordinator election will be entitled to vote on this amendment, or that those who were entitled to vote at that time will be entitled now? There could be quite a substantial difference. David Souter ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 From: Ginger Paque To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: requirement > > Hello Charity and all. I am replying to the list, because several people have had this same question. The requirement for voting for a proposed amendment to the charter is different from an election, for instance, of a co-coordinator. The Charter states that **“The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."** That list is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. A "normal" election requires, as you note, that one be a member for at least two months. As I understand it, in order to take part in a vote on a charter amendment, you must have voted in the previous election, in this case, the last co-coordinator election in December, 2008. Please correct me if I am wrong. If anyone has other questions, or would like any clarification, please post them. Thanks! Best, Ginger Charity Gamboa wrote: Hi Ginger, I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely appreciate any clarifications. Thanks! :) Regards, Charity On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Dear IGC members, A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please see full details below and attached). IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would like to express. The Charter states that “The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." That list is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and obligation to vote. Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please use the "abstain" option – that allows us to keep you on the updated membership list as a current member. The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me directly. Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. Regards, Ginger Paque for Ginger Paque and Ian Peter IGC Co-coordinators To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made according to the following process: This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future. Part of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having any clear guidelines or assistance. In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists " http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt RFC 3934 and " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt , as well as the rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. The proposed amendment contains the following elements: - statement of the purpose of the IGC list - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC lists that may be created - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the following manner: a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree that action needs to be taken c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. > Any decision to remove someone from the list will > call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on http://www.igcaucus.org/ Carlos A.Afonso Vittorio Bertola Wilie Curie Avri Doria (co-author) Wiliam Drake Bret Fausett Robin Gross Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) Wolfgang Kleinwächter Jeremy Malcolm Lee W. McKnight Jacqueline A. Morris Adam Peake Parminder Singh David Souter Christopher Wilkinson ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ----- End Original Message ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Aug 24 12:45:39 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:15:39 -0430 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: In-Reply-To: References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> <4A92BF18.9020203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A92C3B3.9030507@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Mon Aug 24 12:51:30 2009 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:51:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: In-Reply-To: <4A92C3B3.9030507@gmail.com> References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> <4A92BF18.9020203@gmail.com> <4A92C3B3.9030507@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 24 Aug 2009, at 17:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > I am going to have to ask that Avri, Parminder, Jeannette, Ian, or > someone else with a better knowledge of these details answer this > question. Thanks for bringing it up now. It would be good if they could explain the justification for the anomaly - a fixed longer membership might be justifiable but one that varies between 2 and 14 months seems indefensible from here. When do we really become members of the community? Once a random event happens i.e. an election or a fixed term? The election event may be random if someone chooses to resign/retire early, as opposed to the annual vote which I would hope is held on a fixed basis since it is a factor in membership of the community. Regards f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 24 13:07:40 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:07:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter In-Reply-To: <3FA77364-1292-45D1-9011-9FF316DBB72E@st-kilda.org> References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> <3FA77364-1292-45D1-9011-9FF316DBB72E@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: Hi, I can give an answer of what I think the consideration was from my perspective as the person was the coordinator at the time the charter was adopted. Both the 2 month rule and this rule are meant to be rules against capture in a open group that has an interesting form of membership - i.e. signing on to the charter. It was also part of the balance between keeping an open list and a members only list. An election takes about a two months between opening for candidates and preparing for a vote. So two months seems a safe gap to prevent election capture. Amending the charter, which by requiring a 2/3 level, was meant to be very hard to do. It was also expected that the process of discussing and putting together amendments could take anything from a month or two to a year or more. For example we have been discussing the issue behind this proposal for a long time now. So again, the previous election list, which assumes that people were not inspired to join specifically for the charter amendment seems a safe capture prevention mechanism. Note: I am not accusing anyone of having joined to make an charter change, only that it could happen and is thus protected against. Without some capture mechanism, it would be trivial some some very vocal group to do a massive amount of recruiting and change the rules on an group they were not committed to. So two months on the list without ever having even taken part in an activity like the election of coordinators seemed too short. By having required at least one act of participation that was not directed at the charter change (and that included at least the 2 month interval), the charter restricts changes to those who have been committed to the charter for a while. Another way of looking at it.: As important as a coordinator is, their term is only 2 years and they can be voted out. The charter on the other hand determines the character of the group and is meant to be more stable then any coordinator's term. Yes, I know this is a character some will accuse in no uncertain terms, and that is fine, they shouldn't join - of course i am assuming that everyone who joined read the charter first since they had to sign that they accepted it. In fact we are but one of two, or maybe three or more, open groups I know of committed to representing civil society interests in Internet governance. And those who find themselves committed despite feeling the charter can be improved, will commit themselves to accept it and then work to change it when they can according to the rules defined in it. a. On 24 Aug 2009, at 12:26, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > On 24 Aug 2009, at 17:15, Charity Gamboa wrote: > >> I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I >> assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the >> IGC you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is >> subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election >> will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last >> updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. >> Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a >> member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely >> appreciate any clarifications. > > Apparently that is not the case for changes of Charter, merely for > elections. > > Which I have to say I find more than very disappointing. > > Is there some justification that anyone would like to make for this > state of affairs? > > Regards > > Fearghas > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 24 13:26:57 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:26:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: In-Reply-To: References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> <4A92BF18.9020203@gmail.com> Message-ID: hi, My assumption is that everyone who was on the members list at the time of that last election (members who either voted then or who were already members) is a voting member for the amendment since the list is cumulative. It does not say only those who voted, it says anyone on that voters list whic include both pervious members and those who joined by signing the on to the charter in the act of voting. what i am not sure about is someone who has quit the list since then. since a basic requirement for membership is being on the list. a. On 24 Aug 2009, at 12:40, David Souter wrote: > Dear Ginger: > > Your answer raises a separate question. > > Do you mean here that only people who actually voted in the last > coordinator election will be entitled to vote on this amendment, or > that those who were entitled to vote at that time will be entitled > now? > > There could be quite a substantial difference. > > David Souter > > > ----- Start Original Message ----- > Sent: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 > From: Ginger Paque > To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" > Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: > requirement > >> >> Hello Charity and all. I am replying to the list, because several >> people > have had this same question. > > The requirement for voting for a proposed amendment to the charter is > different from an election, for instance, of a co-coordinator. The > Charter states that **“The membership requirements for amending the > charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In > amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > will be > deemed a member for amending the charter."** That list is at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. > > A "normal" election requires, as you note, that one be a member for at > least two months. As I understand it, in order to take part in a > vote on > a charter amendment, you must have voted in the previous election, in > this case, the last co-coordinator election in December, 2008. > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > If anyone has other questions, or would like any clarification, please > post them. > > Thanks! Best, Ginger > > > Charity Gamboa wrote: > > Hi Ginger, > > I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I > assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC > you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is > subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election > will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last > updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. > Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a > member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely > appreciate any clarifications. > > Thanks! :) > > Regards, > Charity > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Dear IGC members, > > A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please > see full details below and attached). > > IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment > on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would > like to express. > > The Charter states that “The membership requirements for > amending the charter are based on the most currently available > voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the > previous election will be deemed a member for amending the > charter." That list is at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. > > Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, > please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a > good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and > obligation to vote. > > Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm > whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society > members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of > "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement > with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please > use the "abstain" option – that allows us to keep you on the > updated membership list as a current member. > > The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for > two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results > will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to > receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September > 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote > and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me > directly. > > Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the > task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. > > Regards, > > Ginger Paque > for > Ginger Paque and Ian Peter > IGC Co-coordinators > > > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds > (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous > election > will be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, > the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the > charter (attached to this email) that will make it less > problematic to > deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the > future. Part > of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole > responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having > any clear > guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists " > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management > of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt , as > well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they > desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and > responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be > taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current > charter: > >> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ----- End Original Message ----- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Aug 24 16:37:02 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:37:02 +1000 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The list of members compiled after the last election which is being referred to includes all previously affirmed members, irrespective of whether they voted or not in the last co-ordinator election, plus new members who voted. I have checked that this is so. So there are people on the list who are members but may not have voted last time. They should all receive a ballot paper IMHO (unless they have left the list or are deceased). As Coordinators Ginger and I will have to deal with any individual anomalies that arise here and interpret the Charter as best we can. (One possibility I can think of is someone who was on the list for more than two months prior to the last election, can confirm they are civil society, but did not vote so was not added to the list). Anyone in such a position should contact Ginger and myself immediately off list and we will make an appropriate judgement as regards validity. Ginger and I will also have to interpret whether people still on the list at January 29 2009 are still valid members for purposes of a vote. I am inclined to suggest that those who are deceased or who have left the list are not to be counted. Ginger and I will do the best we can to run this process smoothly, and hopefully without too much process discussion. We may have to make some judgements as regards validity of votes in accordance with the Charter, and we will do so and announce our conclusions to the list with our reasoning. Of course anything we do can be the subject of an appeal at the end of the process (which is a good protective mechanism!) (at My understanding of a valid voter would be 1. Anyone on the list compiled after last coordinator election (the list at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E.) Plus 2. Anyone on the previous members list from On 25/08/09 3:26 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > hi, > > My assumption is that everyone who was on the members list at the time > of that last election (members who either voted then or who were > already members) is a voting member for the amendment since the list > is cumulative. It does not say only those who voted, it says anyone on > that voters list whic include both pervious members and those who > joined by signing the on to the charter in the act of voting. > > what i am not sure about is someone who has quit the list since then. > since a basic requirement for membership is being on the list. > > a. > > On 24 Aug 2009, at 12:40, David Souter wrote: > >> Dear Ginger: >> >> Your answer raises a separate question. >> >> Do you mean here that only people who actually voted in the last >> coordinator election will be entitled to vote on this amendment, or >> that those who were entitled to vote at that time will be entitled >> now? >> >> There could be quite a substantial difference. >> >> David Souter >> >> >> ----- Start Original Message ----- >> Sent: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >> Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: >> requirement >> >>> >>> Hello Charity and all. I am replying to the list, because several >>> people >> have had this same question. >> >> The requirement for voting for a proposed amendment to the charter is >> different from an election, for instance, of a co-coordinator. The >> Charter states that **³The membership requirements for amending the >> charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In >> amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election >> will be >> deemed a member for amending the charter."** That list is at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >> >> A "normal" election requires, as you note, that one be a member for at >> least two months. As I understand it, in order to take part in a >> vote on >> a charter amendment, you must have voted in the previous election, in >> this case, the last co-coordinator election in December, 2008. >> >> Please correct me if I am wrong. >> >> If anyone has other questions, or would like any clarification, please >> post them. >> >> Thanks! Best, Ginger >> >> >> Charity Gamboa wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger, >> >> I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I >> assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC >> you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is >> subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election >> will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last >> updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. >> Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a >> member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely >> appreciate any clarifications. >> >> Thanks! :) >> >> Regards, >> Charity >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque >> wrote: >> >> Dear IGC members, >> >> A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please >> see full details below and attached). >> >> IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment >> on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would >> like to express. >> >> The Charter states that ³The membership requirements for >> amending the charter are based on the most currently available >> voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the >> previous election will be deemed a member for amending the >> charter." That list is at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >> >> Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, >> please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a >> good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and >> obligation to vote. >> >> Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm >> whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society >> members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of >> "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement >> with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please >> use the "abstain" option ­ that allows us to keep you on the >> updated membership list as a current member. >> >> The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for >> two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results >> will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to >> receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September >> 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote >> and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me >> directly. >> >> Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the >> task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ginger Paque >> for >> Ginger Paque and Ian Peter >> IGC Co-coordinators >> >> >> >> >> To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: >> >> According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made >> according to the following process: >> >> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer >> than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds >> (2/3) >> of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending >> the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. >> In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >> election >> will be >> deemed a member for amending the charter. >> >> Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, >> the >> undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the >> charter (attached to this email) that will make it less >> problematic to >> deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the >> future. Part >> of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole >> responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having >> any clear >> guidelines or >> assistance. >> >> In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for >> Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists " >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt >> RFC 3934 and " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management >> of IETF >> Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt , as >> well as the >> rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. >> >> The proposed amendment contains the following elements: >> >> - statement of the purpose of the IGC list >> - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC >> lists that may be created >> - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) >> >> We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they >> desire >> to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the >> posting rules have been infringed. The decision and >> responsibility of >> when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. >> >> If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current >> members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the >> following manner: >> >> a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be >> taken >> b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree >> that action needs to be taken >> c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to >> consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken >> >> The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current >> charter: >> >>> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >>> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >>> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> >> Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Carlos A.Afonso >> Vittorio Bertola >> Wilie Curie >> Avri Doria (co-author) >> Wiliam Drake >> Bret Fausett >> Robin Gross >> Michael Gurstein >> Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Lee W. McKnight >> Jacqueline A. Morris >> Adam Peake >> Parminder Singh >> David Souter >> Christopher Wilkinson >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ----- End Original Message ----- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 24 21:43:25 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members Message-ID: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> What an example this list is setting for governance everywhere.   "we will decide who is a member based on our discretion" "only those we deem members may vote"   Perhaps a little Latin should flow in all knowledge.  Post Facto  From Websters; Late Latin, literally, from a thing done afterward.  The legal aspect is well summed up by Lexus;  An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.   The UN Article 11 (2) addresses such behavior thusly:    (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. (all modern law has treated this the same in the civil rights arena) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 24 21:59:02 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: Arbitrary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <605921.58996.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is insanely wrong, it is very scary to watch people who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote. I am quite worried that this group will lose all sponsorship and or support from any government. I am concerned that the UN may have to distance itself from this list. No one can trust a document eminating from here that is created after such total disregard for international norms on voting.   All here would do well to visit and read a portion of voting rights; 204 of the Human Rights Reader "The Struggle for Voting Rights" http://books.google.com/books?id=z8AiJOqO8rEC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=Universal+voting+rights&source=bl&ots=fZPsT7niXg&sig=i5WzPZ8P6IIGXqwU3RH5o5OD9IA&hl=en&ei=6UOTSvL1E46sswOG69nZDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=Universal%20voting%20rights&f=false Agree or disagree but at least have some historic perspective and insight. --- On Mon, 8/24/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 8:37 PM The list of members compiled after the last election which is being referred to includes all previously affirmed members, irrespective of whether they voted or not in the last co-ordinator election, plus new members who voted. I have checked that this is so. So there are people on the list who are members but may not have voted last time. They should all receive a ballot paper IMHO (unless they have left the list or are deceased). As Coordinators Ginger and I will have to deal with any individual anomalies that arise here and interpret the Charter as best we can. (One possibility I can think of is someone who was on the list for more than two months prior to the last election, can confirm they are civil society, but did not vote so was not added to the list). Anyone in such a position should contact Ginger and myself immediately off list and we will make an appropriate judgement as regards validity. Ginger and I will also have to interpret whether people still on the list at January 29 2009 are still valid members for purposes of a vote. I am inclined to suggest that those who are deceased or who have left the list are not to be counted. Ginger and I will do the best we can to run this process smoothly, and hopefully without too much process discussion. We may have to make some judgements as regards validity of votes in accordance with the Charter, and we will do so and announce our conclusions to the list with our reasoning. Of course anything we do can be the subject of an appeal at the end of the process (which is a good protective mechanism!) (at My understanding of a valid voter would be 1. Anyone on the list compiled after last coordinator election (the list at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E.) Plus 2. Anyone on the previous members list from On 25/08/09 3:26 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > hi, > > My assumption is that everyone who was on the members list at the time > of that last election (members who either voted then or who were > already members) is a voting member for the amendment since the list > is cumulative. It does not say only those who voted, it says anyone on > that voters list whic include both pervious members and those who > joined by signing the on to the charter in the act of voting. > > what i am not sure about is someone who has quit the list since then. > since a basic requirement for membership is being on the list. > > a. > > On 24 Aug 2009, at 12:40, David Souter wrote: > >> Dear Ginger: >> >> Your answer raises a separate question. >> >> Do you mean here that only people who actually voted in the last >> coordinator election will be entitled to vote on this amendment, or >> that those who were entitled to vote at that time will be entitled >> now? >> >> There could be quite a substantial difference. >> >> David Souter >> >> >> ----- Start Original Message ----- >> Sent: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >> Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: >> requirement >> >>> >>> Hello Charity and all. I am replying to the list, because several >>> people >> have had this same question. >> >> The requirement for voting for a proposed amendment to the charter is >> different from an election, for instance, of a co-coordinator. The >> Charter states that **³The membership requirements for amending the >> charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In >> amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election >> will be >> deemed a member for amending the charter."**  That list is at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >> >> A "normal" election requires, as you note, that one be a member for at >> least two months. As I understand it, in order to take part in a >> vote on >> a charter amendment, you must have voted in the previous election, in >> this case, the last co-coordinator election in December, 2008. >> >> Please correct me if I am wrong. >> >> If anyone has other questions, or would like any clarification, please >> post them. >> >> Thanks! Best, Ginger >> >> >> Charity Gamboa wrote: >> >>  Hi Ginger, >> >>  I joined IGC January 2009.  Please correct me if I am wrong if I >>  assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC >>  you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is >>  subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election >>  will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last >>  updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. >>  Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a >>  member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely >>  appreciate any clarifications. >> >>  Thanks! :) >> >>  Regards, >>  Charity >> >>  On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque >>  wrote: >> >>    Dear IGC members, >> >>    A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please >>    see full details below and attached). >> >>    IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment >>    on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would >>    like to express. >> >>    The Charter states that ³The membership requirements for >>    amending the charter are based on the most currently available >>    voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the >>    previous election will be deemed a member for amending the >>    charter."  That list is at >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >> >>    Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, >>    please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a >>    good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and >>    obligation to vote. >> >>    Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm >>    whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society >>    members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of >>    "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement >>    with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please >>    use the "abstain" option ­ that allows us to keep you on the >>    updated membership list as a current member. >> >>    The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for >>    two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results >>    will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to >>    receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September >>    2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote >>    and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me >>    directly. >> >>    Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the >>    task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. >> >>    Regards, >> >>    Ginger Paque >>    for >>    Ginger Paque and Ian Peter >>    IGC Co-coordinators >> >> >> >> >>    To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: >> >>    According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made >>    according to the following process: >> >>    This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer >>    than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds >> (2/3) >>    of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending >>    the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. >>    In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >> election >>    will be >>    deemed a member for amending the charter. >> >>    Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, >> the >>    undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the >>    charter (attached to this email) that will make it less >> problematic to >>    deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the >> future.  Part >>    of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole >>    responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having >> any clear >>    guidelines or >>    assistance. >> >>    In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for >>    Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists    " >>    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt >>      RFC 3934 and  "    Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management >> of IETF >>    Mailing Lists"     http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt    , as >> well as the >>    rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. >> >>    The proposed amendment contains the following elements: >> >>    - statement of the purpose of the IGC list >>    - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC >>    lists that may be created >>    - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) >> >>    We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they >> desire >>    to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the >>    posting rules have been infringed.  The decision and >> responsibility of >>    when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. >> >>    If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current >>    members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the >>    following manner: >> >>    a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be >> taken >>    b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree >>    that action needs to be taken >>    c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to >>    consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken >> >>    The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current >> charter: >> >>> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >>> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >>> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> >>    Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>    Carlos A.Afonso >>    Vittorio Bertola >>    Wilie Curie >>    Avri Doria (co-author) >>    Wiliam Drake >>    Bret Fausett >>    Robin Gross >>    Michael Gurstein >>    Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) >>    Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>    Jeremy Malcolm >>    Lee W. McKnight >>    Jacqueline A. Morris >>    Adam Peake >>    Parminder Singh >>    David Souter >>    Christopher Wilkinson >> >> >> >> >> >>    ____________________________________________________________ >>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>        governance at lists.cpsr.org >>    To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>    For all list information and functions, see: >>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ----- End Original Message ----- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 25 02:49:03 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:19:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: In-Reply-To: References: <4A926BF9.7040705@gmail.com> <4A92BF18.9020203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A93895F.8000507@itforchange.net> Avri I request a clarification about your views on this. You earlier email seems to suggest that the act of voting is necessary to put one on the voters list for charter amendment. To quote your email "So two months on the list without ever having even taken part in an activity like the election of coordinators seemed too short. By having required at least one act of participation that was not directed at the charter change (and that included at least the 2 month interval), the charter restricts changes to those who have been committed to the charter for a while." But the email below seems to suggest that one needs only to be on the voting list (which, as per present procedure, is just to be on the egov list for 2 months prior to elections without even an affirmation of the charter, which at present is being done mostly only as a part of the election process) for the last election to be able to vote for charter amendment. >It does not say only those who voted, it says anyone on that voters list which include both previous members and >those who joined by signing the on to the charter in the act of voting. the charter reads "The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter." To me it seems to say one *should* have voted in *the* previous election to vote for amending the charter. I remember that during the election when Ian was chosen as a coordinator we put text on the ballot paper to the effect that while you will still retain IGC membership (if you already are one) even if you do not voting, voting is necessary to qualify to vote in any charter amendment that may come up. My personal preference is that anyone who has been an IGC member, by specifically accepting membership through affirmation of the charter, for a sufficiently long period, say 9 months or a year, should be allowed to vote for a charter amendment even if she may have missed voting because she was on a long vacation at that time or something like that. But that is not what the charter says at present. We should amend the charter to make a more reasonable provision for voters list for charter amendments. I do agree with you that it is important to provide sufficient safeguards against capture. parminder Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > My assumption is that everyone who was on the members list at the time > of that last election (members who either voted then or who were > already members) is a voting member for the amendment since the list > is cumulative. It does not say only those who voted, it says anyone on > that voters list whic include both pervious members and those who > joined by signing the on to the charter in the act of voting. > > what i am not sure about is someone who has quit the list since then. > since a basic requirement for membership is being on the list. > > a. > > On 24 Aug 2009, at 12:40, David Souter wrote: > >> Dear Ginger: >> >> Your answer raises a separate question. >> >> Do you mean here that only people who actually voted in the last >> coordinator election will be entitled to vote on this amendment, or >> that those who were entitled to vote at that time will be entitled now? >> >> There could be quite a substantial difference. >> >> David Souter >> >> >> ----- Start Original Message ----- >> Sent: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >> Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: >> requirement >> >>> >>> Hello Charity and all. I am replying to the list, because several >>> people >> have had this same question. >> >> The requirement for voting for a proposed amendment to the charter is >> different from an election, for instance, of a co-coordinator. The >> Charter states that **“The membership requirements for amending the >> charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In >> amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election >> will be >> deemed a member for amending the charter."** That list is at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >> >> A "normal" election requires, as you note, that one be a member for at >> least two months. As I understand it, in order to take part in a vote on >> a charter amendment, you must have voted in the previous election, in >> this case, the last co-coordinator election in December, 2008. >> >> Please correct me if I am wrong. >> >> If anyone has other questions, or would like any clarification, please >> post them. >> >> Thanks! Best, Ginger >> >> >> Charity Gamboa wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger, >> >> I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I >> assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC >> you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is >> subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election >> will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last >> updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. >> Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a >> member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely >> appreciate any clarifications. >> >> Thanks! :) >> >> Regards, >> Charity >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque >> wrote: >> >> Dear IGC members, >> >> A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please >> see full details below and attached). >> >> IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment >> on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would >> like to express. >> >> The Charter states that “The membership requirements for >> amending the charter are based on the most currently available >> voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the >> previous election will be deemed a member for amending the >> charter." That list is at >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >> >> Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, >> please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a >> good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and >> obligation to vote. >> >> Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm >> whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society >> members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of >> "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement >> with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please >> use the "abstain" option – that allows us to keep you on the >> updated membership list as a current member. >> >> The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for >> two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results >> will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to >> receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September >> 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote >> and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me >> directly. >> >> Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the >> task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ginger Paque >> for >> Ginger Paque and Ian Peter >> IGC Co-coordinators >> >> >> >> >> To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: >> >> According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made >> according to the following process: >> >> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer >> than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds >> (2/3) >> of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending >> the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. >> In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election >> will be >> deemed a member for amending the charter. >> >> Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the >> undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the >> charter (attached to this email) that will make it less >> problematic to >> deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the >> future. Part >> of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole >> responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having any >> clear >> guidelines or >> assistance. >> >> In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for >> Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists " >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt >> RFC 3934 and " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management >> of IETF >> Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt , as >> well as the >> rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. >> >> The proposed amendment contains the following elements: >> >> - statement of the purpose of the IGC list >> - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC >> lists that may be created >> - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) >> >> We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they >> desire >> to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the >> posting rules have been infringed. The decision and >> responsibility of >> when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. >> >> If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current >> members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the >> following manner: >> >> a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken >> b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree >> that action needs to be taken >> c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to >> consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken >> >> The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current >> charter: >> >>> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >>> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >>> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> >> Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Carlos A.Afonso >> Vittorio Bertola >> Wilie Curie >> Avri Doria (co-author) >> Wiliam Drake >> Bret Fausett >> Robin Gross >> Michael Gurstein >> Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Lee W. McKnight >> Jacqueline A. Morris >> Adam Peake >> Parminder Singh >> David Souter >> Christopher Wilkinson >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ----- End Original Message ----- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 25 05:22:25 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:22:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> In message <76484.77630.qm at web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 18:43:25 on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Eric Dierker writes >What an example this list is setting for governance everywhere. >  >"we will decide who is a member based on our discretion" "only those we deem members may vote" So you won't mind if I round up a couple of hundred of my friends, and get them to become instant list members, and vote the way I ask them to? That's what Capture is about, and any sensible entity will have anti-capture rules. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Tue Aug 25 07:44:51 2009 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:44:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:22, Roland Perry wrote: > That's what Capture is about, and any sensible entity will have anti- > capture rules. My concern about the capture rules which are fine in principle is the the fact that you may not be able to vote on charter changes for a random period of time ranging from just over 2 months to 14 months. If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of time is acceptable. Perhaps for future charter changes an addition should be made to this change setting a fixed time period as happens with voting for coordinators, I would suggest 6 months bit since I am voteless I will leave it to others to propose a timescale to protect the charter from "drive by" abuse. Regards Fearghas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 07:52:53 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:22:53 -0430 Subject: Offlist Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <4A93D095.7030402@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 25 07:59:05 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:59:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <8csfeusJI9kKFAVm@perry.co.uk> In message <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61 at st-kilda.org>, at 12:44:51 on Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Fearghas McKay writes >> That's what Capture is about, and any sensible entity will have anti- >>capture rules. > >My concern about the capture rules which are fine in principle is the >the fact that you may not be able to vote on charter changes for a >random period of time ranging from just over 2 months to 14 months. I agree that any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something for the co-ordinators to consider. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Aug 25 09:02:26 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:02:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> hi, my opinions on two of the subject being discussed > If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that > would be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging > period of time is acceptable. the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, the time ends up being variable. at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the IGC and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when it was written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means they are on the list of members that resulted at the end of the last elections. the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently then those related to the charter. other then one being based on time criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related to coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of voters, while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. > who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote > and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a library full of law books were every single possible detail is spelled out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions that may require human judgement. one of the things we expect from the coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, we are electing people we trust to make these judgement when called upon to do so. but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals team so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is ever necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability to decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that the community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as coordinator. we have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we never do, but they are there to make sure that the will of the members is adhered to (i.e the democratic criteria and the check and balances). > any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a > more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something for > the co-ordinators to consider. i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted voters list on the web site. now some people have left the list and come back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some people have quit because they could not stand the way the list was going because we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then come back; are they no longer members? and some people have left the list because some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; are they no longer members? (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of it. as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to explain how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone asks who the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the list serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so disgusted when the left that position that they kept doing it even after their terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the current coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want to.) so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the first charter or any of the elections is on the published members list and is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of the total membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to - i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. on anything that is not covered specifically, the border cases i referred to previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and liability of making a judgement. and if we members think they blew it, then we have the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review their decision. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 25 09:53:33 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:23:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> Message-ID: <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Avri >...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members list and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of the total membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to... How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear that only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election are eligible to vote for charter amendment. In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem criterion. Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian got elected that one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote for any ensuing charter amendment. I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should depend on a random event which may or may not happen at regular intervals. I also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't'. This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this list that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be able to just write to coordinators affirming the charter and seeking IGC membership, rather only being able to do so on the ballot paper, which if they miss, well.... This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how IGC membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text in the charter which could make clear and workable provisions for voting eligibility for charter amendment. For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the co-coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter for such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the ideal situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we should take up charter amendment for that. My two cents. parminder Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > my opinions on two of the subject being discussed > >> If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would >> be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of >> time is acceptable. > > the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made > the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, > the time ends up being variable. > > at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the IGC > and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when it was > written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means they are on > the list of members that resulted at the end of the last elections. > > the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently > then those related to the charter. other then one being based on time > criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related to > coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of voters, > while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. > > >> who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote >> and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote > > that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a > library full of law books were every single possible detail is spelled > out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions that may > require human judgement. one of the things we expect from the > coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, we are > electing people we trust to make these judgement when called upon to > do so. > > but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy > the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals team > so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is ever > necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability to > decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that the > community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as coordinator. we > have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we never do, but they > are there to make sure that the will of the members is adhered to (i.e > the democratic criteria and the check and balances). > >> any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a >> more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something for >> the co-ordinators to consider. > > i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted voters > list on the web site. now some people have left the list and come > back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some people have > quit because they could not stand the way the list was going because > we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then come back; are > they no longer members? and some people have left the list because > some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; are they no > longer members? > > (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the > email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can > do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of it. > as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to explain > how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone asks who > the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the list > serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so disgusted > when the left that position that they kept doing it even after their > terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the current > coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want to.) > > so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the first > charter or any of the elections is on the published members list and > is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of the total > membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to - > i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. on anything > that is not covered specifically, the border cases i referred to > previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and liability of > making a judgement. and if we members think they blew it, then we have > the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review their decision. > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Aug 25 10:23:23 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:23:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <46EC4286-F345-4D18-93E0-1F5A6F4435E5@psg.com> i disagree. i guess one of us will be appealing which ever way they go. a. On 25 Aug 2009, at 09:53, Parminder wrote: > Avri > > >...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the > first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members > list and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of > the total membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is > equal to... > > How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear > that only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election > are eligible to vote for charter amendment. > > In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had > mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem > criterion. Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian > got elected that one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote > for any ensuing charter amendment. > > I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should > depend on a random event which may or may not happen at regular > intervals. I also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more > regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't'. > > This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this > list that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be > able to just write to coordinators affirming the charter and > seeking IGC membership, rather only being able to do so on the > ballot paper, which if they miss, well.... > > This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on > eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how > IGC membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text > in the charter which could make clear and workable provisions for > voting eligibility for charter amendment. > > For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the co- > coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter for > such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the > ideal situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we > should take up charter amendment for that. > > My two cents. > > parminder > > > Avri Doria wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> my opinions on two of the subject being discussed >> >>> If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that >>> would be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging >>> period of time is acceptable. >> >> the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having >> made the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. >> so yes, the time ends up being variable. >> >> at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the >> IGC and its charter. either they voted on the original charter >> when it was written, or they voted in one of the elections. that >> means they are on the list of members that resulted at the end of >> the last elections. >> >> the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently >> then those related to the charter. other then one being based on >> time criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related >> to coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of >> voters, while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. >> >> >>> who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote >>> and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote >> >> that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a >> library full of law books were every single possible detail is >> spelled out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border >> conditions that may require human judgement. one of the things we >> expect from the coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the >> coordinators, we are electing people we trust to make these >> judgement when called upon to do so. >> >> but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how >> trustworthy the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have >> an appeals team so that that judgement can be judged and overruled >> if it is ever necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has >> the ability to decide that the person serving as coordinator is so >> flawed that the community needs to reconsider that person's fitness >> as coordinator. we have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope >> we never do, but they are there to make sure that the will of the >> members is adhered to (i.e the democratic criteria and the check >> and balances). >> >>> any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require >>> a more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something >>> for the co-ordinators to consider. >> >> i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted >> voters list on the web site. now some people have left the list >> and come back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some >> people have quit because they could not stand the way the list was >> going because we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then >> come back; are they no longer members? and some people have left >> the list because some of the discussion have been so disgusting to >> them; are they no longer members? >> >> (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop >> the email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. >> you can do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take >> care of it. as one of those list servants, i would be more then >> happy to explain how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and >> before anyone asks who the list servants are: they are ex >> coordinators who did the list serving at the time of being >> coordinators and who weren't so disgusted when the left that >> position that they kept doing it even after their terms had ended. >> we do it at the sufferance of the current coordinators who can kick >> us to the curb anytime they want to.) >> >> so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the >> first charter or any of the elections is on the published members >> list and is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of >> the total membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is >> equal to - i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful >> amendment. on anything that is not covered specifically, the >> border cases i referred to previously, the coordinators have the >> responsibility and liability of making a judgement. and if we >> members think they blew it, then we have the opportunity to ask the >> appeals team to review their decision. >> >> a. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 25 10:37:05 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:07:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <46EC4286-F345-4D18-93E0-1F5A6F4435E5@psg.com> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> <46EC4286-F345-4D18-93E0-1F5A6F4435E5@psg.com> Message-ID: <4A93F711.6030807@itforchange.net> No, I wont appeal. i give my word :). I leave it to the co-coordinators to decide both on the present issue of voters list for charter amendment, and to sort out the wider membership issue if they wish to. Parminder Avri Doria wrote: > i disagree. > i guess one of us will be appealing which ever way they go. > > a. > > > On 25 Aug 2009, at 09:53, Parminder wrote: > >> Avri >> >> >...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the >> first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members >> list and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of >> the total membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is >> equal to... >> >> How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear that >> only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election are >> eligible to vote for charter amendment. >> >> In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had >> mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem >> criterion. Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian >> got elected that one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote >> for any ensuing charter amendment. >> >> I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should >> depend on a random event which may or may not happen at regular >> intervals. I also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more regular >> "count" of who is a member and who isn't'. >> >> This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this >> list that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be >> able to just write to coordinators affirming the charter and seeking >> IGC membership, rather only being able to do so on the ballot paper, >> which if they miss, well.... >> >> This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on >> eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how >> IGC membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text in >> the charter which could make clear and workable provisions for voting >> eligibility for charter amendment. >> >> For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the >> co-coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter >> for such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the >> ideal situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we >> should take up charter amendment for that. >> >> My two cents. >> >> parminder >> >> >> Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> my opinions on two of the subject being discussed >>> >>>> If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that >>>> would be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging >>>> period of time is acceptable. >>> >>> the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made >>> the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, >>> the time ends up being variable. >>> >>> at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the >>> IGC and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when >>> it was written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means >>> they are on the list of members that resulted at the end of the last >>> elections. >>> >>> the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently >>> then those related to the charter. other then one being based on >>> time criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related >>> to coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of >>> voters, while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. >>> >>> >>>> who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote >>>> and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote >>> >>> that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a >>> library full of law books were every single possible detail is >>> spelled out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions >>> that may require human judgement. one of the things we expect from >>> the coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, >>> we are electing people we trust to make these judgement when called >>> upon to do so. >>> >>> but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy >>> the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals >>> team so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is >>> ever necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability >>> to decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that >>> the community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as >>> coordinator. we have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we >>> never do, but they are there to make sure that the will of the >>> members is adhered to (i.e the democratic criteria and the check and >>> balances). >>> >>>> any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a >>>> more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something >>>> for the co-ordinators to consider. >>> >>> i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted >>> voters list on the web site. now some people have left the list and >>> come back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some people >>> have quit because they could not stand the way the list was going >>> because we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then come >>> back; are they no longer members? and some people have left the list >>> because some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; are >>> they no longer members? >>> >>> (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the >>> email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can >>> do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of >>> it. as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to >>> explain how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone >>> asks who the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the >>> list serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so >>> disgusted when the left that position that they kept doing it even >>> after their terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the >>> current coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want to.) >>> >>> so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the >>> first charter or any of the elections is on the published members >>> list and is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of >>> the total membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is >>> equal to - i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. >>> on anything that is not covered specifically, the border cases i >>> referred to previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and >>> liability of making a judgement. and if we members think they blew >>> it, then we have the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review >>> their decision. >>> >>> a. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Aug 25 10:44:53 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:44:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <46EC4286-F345-4D18-93E0-1F5A6F4435E5@psg.com> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> <46EC4286-F345-4D18-93E0-1F5A6F4435E5@psg.com> Message-ID: On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:23, Avri Doria wrote: >> How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear >> that only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election >> are eligible to vote for charter amendment. > the charter says: The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. the currently available voters list - i.e. the list of voters as available on the web site and just in case there is any doubt about whether having voted in the previous election is enough those who voted in the previous election will be deemed members it does not say 'only those'. the second sentence is a clarification not a limitation. but if you and others disagree, this is a perfect thing for the coordinators to make a judgement on, and a perfect thing for anyone who thinks they have erred to make an appeal about. i think endless arguments of attrition as have been engaged in before on the nature of belly button lint on this list will not help. a. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From david.souter at runbox.com Tue Aug 25 11:30:00 2009 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:30:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: See correspondence below. The implication of the interpretation in Parminder's post is that list members cannot abstain in votes for coordinator if they wish to be able to vote in any charter amendment that takes place before the subsequent coodinator election. I don't personally recall if I voted in the last coordinator election, so am not sure how this would affect me. However, it seems to me that the right of abstention is and should be part of normal democratic process and that choosing to exercise it in one case should not lead to the removal of voting rights in another. If the charter really does suggest this, then I would have thought it needs amending here as well. It would be interesting to know the number voting in the last election compared with the number then entitled to vote. David Souter ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:23:33 +0530 From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members > > Avri >...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members list and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of the total membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to... How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear that only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election are eligible to vote for charter amendment. In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem criterion. Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian got elected that one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote for any ensuing charter amendment. I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should depend on a random event which may or may not happen at regular intervals. I also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't'. This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this list that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be able to just write to coordinators affirming the charter and seeking IGC membership, rather only being able to do so on the ballot paper, which if they miss, well.... This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how IGC membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text in the charter which could make clear and workable provisions for voting eligibility for charter amendment. For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the co-coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter for such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the ideal situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we should take up charter amendment for that. My two cents. parminder Avri Doria wrote: hi, my opinions on two of the subject being discussed If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of time is acceptable. the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, the time ends up being variable. at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the IGC and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when it was written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means they are on the list of members that resulted at the end of the last elections. the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently then those related to the charter. other then one being based on time criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related to coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of voters, while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a library full of law books were every single possible detail is spelled out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions that may require human judgement. one of the things we expect from the coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, we are electing people we trust to make these judgement when called upon to do so. but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals team so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is ever necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability to decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that the community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as coordinator. we have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we never do, but they are there to make sure that the will of the members is adhered to (i.e the democratic criteria and the check and balances). any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something for the co-ordinators to consider. i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted voters list on the web site. now some people have left the list and come back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some people have quit because they could not stand the way the list was going because we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then come back; are they no longer members? and some people have left the list because some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; are they no longer members? (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of it. as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to explain how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone asks who the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the list serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so disgusted when the left that position that they kept doing it even after their terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the current coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want to.) so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the first charter or any of the elections is on the published members list and is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of the total membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to - i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. on anything that is not covered specifically, the border cases i referred to previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and liability of making a judgement. and if we members think they blew it, then we have the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review their decision. 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 ----- End Original Message ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 25 11:49:42 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:49:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 16:30:00 on Tue, 25 Aug 2009, David Souter writes >The implication of the interpretation in Parminder's post is that list >members cannot abstain in votes for coordinator if they wish to be able >to vote in any charter amendment that takes place before the subsequent >coodinator election. An interesting distinction. I abstained from claiming my right-to-vote (even if that vote had been an abstention). I think I am a similarly on-the-fence, not-quite-a-member-of, the NCUC. While I believe in anti-capture mechanisms, I also believe in systems that are open enough that bottom-up participation is nevertheless possible. [I'll get back on this increasingly prickly fence now]. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Aug 25 12:01:46 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:01:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A940AEA.7000105@wzb.eu> Hi David, from what I remember one could vote for "none of the above". Would such an option meet the right of abstention in your view? This is not a rhetoric question. I find this an interesting debate because I respect both perspectives, the democratic right of abstention but also the wish (as reflected in the charter) to restrict votes on charter amendments to those who care enough about this group to occasionally participate at least in a minimum way. jeanette David Souter wrote: > See correspondence below. > > The implication of the interpretation in Parminder's post is that > list members cannot abstain in votes for coordinator if they wish to > be able to vote in any charter amendment that takes place before the > subsequent coodinator election. > > I don't personally recall if I voted in the last coordinator > election, so am not sure how this would affect me. However, it seems > to me that the right of abstention is and should be part of normal > democratic process and that choosing to exercise it in one case > should not lead to the removal of voting rights in another. If the > charter really does suggest this, then I would have thought it needs > amending here as well. > > It would be interesting to know the number voting in the last > election compared with the number then entitled to vote. > > David Souter > > > > ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:23:33 > +0530 From: Parminder To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria Subject: Re: > [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members > >> Avri > >> ...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the >> > first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members > list and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of > the total membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is > equal to... > > How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear that > only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election are > eligible to vote for charter amendment. > > In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had > mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem > criterion. Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian > got elected that one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote > for any ensuing charter amendment. > > I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should > depend on a random event which may or may not happen at regular > intervals. I also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more regular > "count" of who is a member and who isn't'. > > This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this > list that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be > able to just write to coordinators affirming the charter and > seeking IGC membership, rather only being able to do so on the ballot > paper, which if they miss, well.... > > This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on > eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how > IGC membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text in > the charter which could make clear and workable provisions for voting > eligibility for charter amendment. > > For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the > co-coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter > for such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the > ideal situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we > should take up charter amendment for that. > > My two cents. > > parminder > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > hi, > > my opinions on two of the subject being discussed > > If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would > be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of > time is acceptable. > > > the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made > the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, > the time ends up being variable. > > at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the > IGC and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when > it was written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means > they are on the list of members that resulted at the end of the last > elections. > > the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently > then those related to the charter. other then one being based on > time criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related to > coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of > voters, while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. > > > who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote > and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote > > > that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a > library full of law books were every single possible detail is > spelled out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions > that may require human judgement. one of the things we expect from > the coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, > we are electing people we trust to make these judgement when called > upon to do so. > > but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy > the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals > team so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is ever > necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability to > decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that the > community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as coordinator. > we have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we never do, but > they are there to make sure that the will of the members is adhered > to (i.e the democratic criteria and the check and balances). > > any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a > more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something for > the co-ordinators to consider. > > > i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted > voters list on the web site. now some people have left the list and > come back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some > people have quit because they could not stand the way the list was > going because we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then > come back; are they no longer members? and some people have left the > list because some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; > are they no longer members? > > (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the > email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can > do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of > it. as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to > explain how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone > asks who the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the > list serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so > disgusted when the left that position that they kept doing it even > after their terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the > current coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want > to.) > > so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the > first charter or any of the elections is on the published members > list and is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of the > total membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is equal > to - i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. on > anything that is not covered specifically, the border cases i > referred to previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and > liability of making a judgement. and if we members think they blew > it, then we have the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review > their decision. > > 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 > > > ----- End Original Message ----- > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 12:07:05 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:07:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All I am beginning to think that a way out of this - though it is not backed up by our constitution documents - is to follow the electoral model used in elections in countries, cities etc: 1. One has to have been a resident/ citizen for x number of years - in our case a member of the list for x number of months/ years. That should take care of concerns around "capture". 2. One has to have to have been in the country/ city for the past x period of time - in our case have been seen to be active and participating at least once in the past x period of time. 3. Possibly a participation threshold of at least x number of contributions a year since becoming a member, having already met the requirements of points 1 and 2 above. Best regards, Rui ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 12:14:35 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:14:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Amended Point 2, adding: "That should take care of concerns around representativeness/ transparency etc." 2009/8/25 Rui Correia > Dear All > > I am beginning to think that a way out of this - though it is not backed up > by our constitution documents - is to follow the electoral model used in > elections in countries, cities etc: > > 1. One has to have been a resident/ citizen for x number of years - in our > case a member of the list for x number of months/ years. That should take > care of concerns around "capture". > 2. One has to have to have been in the country/ city for the past x period > of time - in our case have been seen to be active and participating at least > once in the past x period of time. That should take care of concerns around > representativeness/ transparency etc > 3. Possibly a participation threshold of at least x number of contributions > a year since becoming a member, having already met the requirements of > points 1 and 2 above. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From babatope at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 12:22:36 2009 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:22:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, I think Rui's suggestion is spot-on. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Rui Correia wrote: > Amended Point 2, adding: "That should take care of concerns around > representativeness/ transparency etc." > > 2009/8/25 Rui Correia > >> Dear All >> >> I am beginning to think that a way out of this - though it is not backed >> up by our constitution documents - is to follow the electoral model used in >> elections in countries, cities etc: >> >> 1. One has to have been a resident/ citizen for x number of years - in our >> case a member of the list for x number of months/ years. That should take >> care of concerns around "capture". >> 2. One has to have to have been in the country/ city for the past x period >> of time - in our case have been seen to be active and participating at least >> once in the past x period of time. That should take care of concerns around >> representativeness/ transparency etc >> 3. Possibly a participation threshold of at least x number of >> contributions a year since becoming a member, having already met the >> requirements of points 1 and 2 above. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rui >> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Babatope Soremi I'm totally sold out to changing my world for good.... Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 25 12:26:04 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:56:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4A94109C.7070708@itforchange.net> David Souter wrote: > See correspondence below. > > The implication of the interpretation in Parminder's post is that list members cannot abstain in votes for coordinator if they wish to be able to vote in any charter amendment that takes place before the subsequent coodinator election. > In these time of low attention span, before anyone ascribes a restrictive voting membership view to me, I must clarify (not necessarily to you David) that this is only my interpretation of the charter text and not my preferred option or view. Rather to the contrary, I have been arguing that this provision is problematic and will cause problems whenever a charter amendment proposal comes along. It is unfair to anyone who just chose to abstain from voting or may not be able to vote for any reason. To repeat, the only time I conducted coordinator elections, I did caution those who may choose not to vote that in doing so they may lose voting right for charter amendment (though I dont find it logical). My preference in to allow all those who have been IGC members for sufficiently long time, say 9-12 months, to vote for charter amendment. I am even agreeable to Avri's logic, that as an abundant caution against possible capture, we may add a condition like, the member should have voted at least once before or such. But this is not what the charter says at present. In any case, from Ian's email I understand co-coordinators seek to conduct the vote using the members list as it stood immediately after the last election. (I understand that some in this list may never have voted in any IGC voting, whereby this list does not meet Avri's criterion.) If everyone else is, I am fine to have the vote conducted by this list. However, we should then soon formalize this arrangement by entering it into the charter. parminder > I don't personally recall if I voted in the last coordinator election, so am not sure how this would affect me. However, it seems to me that the right of abstention is and should be part of normal democratic process and that choosing to exercise it in one case should not lead to the removal of voting rights in another. If the charter really does suggest this, then I would have thought it needs amending here as well. > > It would be interesting to know the number voting in the last election compared with the number then entitled to vote. > > David Souter > > > > ----- Start Original Message ----- > Sent: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:23:33 +0530 > From: Parminder > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members > > >> Avri >> > > >> ...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the >> > first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members list > and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of the total > membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to... > > How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear that > only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election are > eligible to vote for charter amendment. > > In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had > mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem criterion. > Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian got elected that > one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote for any ensuing > charter amendment. > > I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should depend > on a random event which may or may not happen at regular intervals. I > also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more regular "count" of who > is a member and who isn't'. > > This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this list > that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be able to > just write to coordinators affirming the charter and seeking IGC > membership, rather only being able to do so on the ballot paper, which if > they miss, well.... > > This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on > eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how IGC > membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text in the > charter which could make clear and workable provisions for voting > eligibility for charter amendment. > > For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the > co-coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter for > such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the ideal > situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we should take > up charter amendment for that. > > My two cents. > > parminder > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > hi, > > my opinions on two of the subject being discussed > > If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that > would be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging > period of time is acceptable. > > > the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made > the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, > the time ends up being variable. > > at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the > IGC and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when > it was written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means > they are on the list of members that resulted at the end of the last > elections. > > the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently > then those related to the charter. other then one being based on > time criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related to > coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of > voters, while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. > > > who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to > vote and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote > > > that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a > library full of law books were every single possible detail is > spelled out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions > that may require human judgement. one of the things we expect from > the coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, > we are electing people we trust to make these judgement when called > upon to do so. > > but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy > the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals > team so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is ever > necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability to > decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that the > community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as coordinator. > we have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we never do, but > they are there to make sure that the will of the members is adhered > to (i.e the democratic criteria and the check and balances). > > any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require > a more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. > Something for the co-ordinators to consider. > > > i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted > voters list on the web site. now some people have left the list and > come back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some > people have quit because they could not stand the way the list was > going because we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then > come back; are they no longer members? and some people have left the > list because some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; > are they no longer members? > > (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the > email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can > do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of > it. as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to > explain how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone > asks who the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the > list serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so > disgusted when the left that position that they kept doing it even > after their terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the > current coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want > to.) > > so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the > first charter or any of the elections is on the published members > list and is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of the > total membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is equal > to - i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. on > anything that is not covered specifically, the border cases i > referred to previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and > liability of making a judgement. and if we members think they blew > it, then we have the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review > their decision. > > 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 > > > ----- End Original Message ----- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 14:08:03 2009 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:08:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I can see both readings of the charter. Since there is confusion, this is the opportunity to clarify and set a precedent. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > > ... follow the electoral model used in elections in countries, cities etc: I was thinking along those lines too. Here in Santa Cruz, California I believe I have to vote in a general election (every four years) to maintain my registration. And yes, if I lapse I can re-register, with some time constraints. So maybe 1) include those who voted last time - that part is clear 2) query the rest, ask if they want to be voters, ... That would extend the charter amendment time line, add a step. I wonder what the list software tallies about participation, last post, bounces, ... (Are subscribers whose mail bounces deleted?) Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Aug 25 14:15:55 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:15:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 25 Aug 2009, at 14:08, Sylvia Caras wrote: > Here in Santa Cruz, California > I believe I have to vote in a general election (every four years) to > maintain my registration. I think Australia has rules similar to that if i remember some expat friend's circumstances correctly. > (Are subscribers whose mail bounces deleted?) not deleted, but set to nomail by the list sw automatically after some number bounces (i forget the number off hand). so they are still subscribed and can be reactivated. 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 25 15:30:38 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:30:38 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members Message-ID: <19162590.1251228638774.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Roland and all, Please do gather all of your friends. Internet governance certainly needs them! Capture already seems to be in place now on this forum, so adding more voices and perspectives can only help provide a more liberal/plural picture as to what Internet Governance is needed and/or desired, instead of the view of a tiny few. -----Original Message----- >From: Roland Perry >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 4:22 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members > >In message <76484.77630.qm at web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 18:43:25 on >Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Eric Dierker writes >>What an example this list is setting for governance everywhere. >>  >>"we will decide who is a member based on our discretion" "only those we deem members may vote" > >So you won't mind if I round up a couple of hundred of my friends, and >get them to become instant list members, and vote the way I ask them to? > >That's what Capture is about, and any sensible entity will have >anti-capture rules. >-- >Roland Perry >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 25 15:40:30 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:40:30 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members Message-ID: <858090.1251229232141.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Sylvia and all, wouldn't what you suggest not allow for many to openly and transparently participate and have a voice? Seems to me it would. -----Original Message----- >From: Sylvia Caras >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 1:08 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members > >I can see both readings of the charter. Since there is confusion, >this is the opportunity to clarify and set a precedent. > >On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >> >> ... follow the electoral model used in elections in countries, cities etc: > >I was thinking along those lines too. Here in Santa Cruz, California >I believe I have to vote in a general election (every four years) to >maintain my registration. And yes, if I lapse I can re-register, with >some time constraints. > >So maybe > >1) include those who voted last time - that part is clear > >2) query the rest, ask if they want to be voters, ... > >That would extend the charter amendment time line, add a step. I >wonder what the list software tallies about participation, last post, >bounces, ... (Are subscribers whose mail bounces deleted?) > >Sylvia >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 25 15:50:09 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:50:09 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members Message-ID: <28753547.1251229809343.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 25 16:04:40 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:04:40 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members Message-ID: <19389610.1251230683981.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Fearghas and all, Drive by abuse as you put it is rare but does happen and can be dealt with via technical means. The biggest problem is determining what is and what is not abuse in terns of participation on this forum? Such definitions should be strictly defined in terms of technical abuses as to security and privacy in the managment of this list forum and the making of false accusations and name calling. So far only a few forum participants fall into these catagories that I have seen, and we all know whom they are. -----Original Message----- >From: Fearghas McKay >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 6:44 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Cc: Fearghas McKay >Subject: Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members > > >On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:22, Roland Perry wrote: > >> That's what Capture is about, and any sensible entity will have anti- >> capture rules. > >My concern about the capture rules which are fine in principle is the >the fact that you may not be able to vote on charter changes for a >random period of time ranging from just over 2 months to 14 months. > >If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would >be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of >time is acceptable. > >Perhaps for future charter changes an addition should be made to this >change setting a fixed time period as happens with voting for >coordinators, I would suggest 6 months bit since I am voteless I will >leave it to others to propose a timescale to protect the charter from >"drive by" abuse. > >Regards > > Fearghas >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Aug 25 16:25:23 2009 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:25:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <4A940AEA.7000105@wzb.eu> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> <4A940AEA.7000105@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4A9448B3.1030709@rits.org.br> NIC.br here in Brazil has a statutory rule which requires that board members cannot miss three regular face-to-face meetings in sequence -- if this happens without explicit justification in advance or a "force majeure" reason, the board member should resign. For the election process to choose CGI.br board members, voters must represent organizations or associations which are formally constituted for at least two years. But there are no rules for abstention in voting. The board member ought to be present, but is free to abstain from voting, and this is duly recorded in the proceedings. I quote these just as examples, I do not think we should require of institutions that they are formally around for a minimum period of time to join -- and this would imply red tape we cannot handle or afford. However, I think at least one rule for protecting against capture has already been mentioned and I think should be considered -- a minimum time period of membership in order to be able to vote on any decision. frt rgds --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi David, > > from what I remember one could vote for "none of the above". Would such > an option meet the right of abstention in your view? > > This is not a rhetoric question. I find this an interesting debate > because I respect both perspectives, the democratic right of abstention > but also the wish (as reflected in the charter) to restrict votes on > charter amendments to those who care enough about this group to > occasionally participate at least in a minimum way. > > jeanette > > > David Souter wrote: >> See correspondence below. >> >> The implication of the interpretation in Parminder's post is that >> list members cannot abstain in votes for coordinator if they wish to >> be able to vote in any charter amendment that takes place before the >> subsequent coodinator election. >> >> I don't personally recall if I voted in the last coordinator >> election, so am not sure how this would affect me. However, it seems >> to me that the right of abstention is and should be part of normal >> democratic process and that choosing to exercise it in one case >> should not lead to the removal of voting rights in another. If the >> charter really does suggest this, then I would have thought it needs >> amending here as well. >> >> It would be interesting to know the number voting in the last >> election compared with the number then entitled to vote. >> >> David Souter >> >> >> >> ----- Start Original Message ----- Sent: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:23:33 >> +0530 From: Parminder To: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria Subject: Re: >> [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members >> >>> Avri >> >>> ...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the >>> >> first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members >> list and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of >> the total membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is >> equal to... >> >> How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear that >> only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election are >> eligible to vote for charter amendment. >> >> In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had >> mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem >> criterion. Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian >> got elected that one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote >> for any ensuing charter amendment. >> >> I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should >> depend on a random event which may or may not happen at regular >> intervals. I also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more regular >> "count" of who is a member and who isn't'. >> >> This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this >> list that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be >> able to just write to coordinators affirming the charter and >> seeking IGC membership, rather only being able to do so on the ballot >> paper, which if they miss, well.... >> >> This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on >> eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how >> IGC membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text in >> the charter which could make clear and workable provisions for voting >> eligibility for charter amendment. >> >> For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the >> co-coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter >> for such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the >> ideal situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we >> should take up charter amendment for that. >> >> My two cents. >> >> parminder >> >> >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> my opinions on two of the subject being discussed >> >> If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would >> be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of >> time is acceptable. >> >> >> the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made >> the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, >> the time ends up being variable. >> >> at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the IGC >> and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when it >> was written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means they >> are on the list of members that resulted at the end of the last >> elections. >> >> the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently >> then those related to the charter. other then one being based on time >> criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related to >> coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of >> voters, while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members. >> >> >> who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote >> and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote >> >> >> that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a >> library full of law books were every single possible detail is spelled >> out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions >> that may require human judgement. one of the things we expect from >> the coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, >> we are electing people we trust to make these judgement when called >> upon to do so. >> >> but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy >> the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals team >> so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is ever >> necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability to >> decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that the >> community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as coordinator. we >> have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we never do, but they >> are there to make sure that the will of the members is adhered to (i.e >> the democratic criteria and the check and balances). >> >> any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a >> more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something for >> the co-ordinators to consider. >> >> >> i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted voters >> list on the web site. now some people have left the list and >> come back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some >> people have quit because they could not stand the way the list was >> going because we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then >> come back; are they no longer members? and some people have left the >> list because some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; >> are they no longer members? >> >> (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the >> email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can >> do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of >> it. as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to >> explain how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone >> asks who the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the >> list serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so >> disgusted when the left that position that they kept doing it even >> after their terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the current >> coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want to.) >> >> so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the first >> charter or any of the elections is on the published members list and >> is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of the >> total membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is equal >> to - i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. on >> anything that is not covered specifically, the border cases i referred >> to previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and liability >> of making a judgement. and if we members think they blew it, then we >> have the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review their decision. >> >> 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 >> >> >> ----- End Original Message ----- >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 25 16:34:47 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:34:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: Message-ID: <10779125.1251232503057.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 25 16:47:45 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:47:45 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: Message-ID: <11746429.1251233273074.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Ian and ll, I wish I could trust Gingers judgment and sense of fairness, but I cannot given her recent name calling of myself and others. As such Ginger along with a few others have demonstrated by their own actions and words that their behavior and especially ethical judgment leaves far too much to be desired accordingly Ian. -----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter >Sent: Aug 24, 2009 3:37 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria >Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: > >The list of members compiled after the last election which is being referred >to includes all previously affirmed members, irrespective of whether they >voted or not in the last co-ordinator election, plus new members who voted. >I have checked that this is so. So there are people on the list who are >members but may not have voted last time. They should all receive a ballot >paper IMHO (unless they have left the list or are deceased). > >As Coordinators Ginger and I will have to deal with any individual anomalies >that arise here and interpret the Charter as best we can. (One possibility I >can think of is someone who was on the list for more than two months prior >to the last election, can confirm they are civil society, but did not vote >so was not added to the list). Anyone in such a position should contact >Ginger and myself immediately off list and we will make an appropriate >judgement as regards validity. > >Ginger and I will also have to interpret whether people still on the list at >January 29 2009 are still valid members for purposes of a vote. I am >inclined to suggest that those who are deceased or who have left the list >are not to be counted. > >Ginger and I will do the best we can to run this process smoothly, and >hopefully without too much process discussion. We may have to make some >judgements as regards validity of votes in accordance with the Charter, and >we will do so and announce our conclusions to the list with our reasoning. >Of course anything we do can be the subject of an appeal at the end of the >process (which is a good protective mechanism!) > > > > > > > >(at My understanding of a valid voter would be > >1. Anyone on the list compiled after last coordinator election (the list at >http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E.) > >Plus > >2. Anyone on the previous members list from > > >On 25/08/09 3:26 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> hi, >> >> My assumption is that everyone who was on the members list at the time >> of that last election (members who either voted then or who were >> already members) is a voting member for the amendment since the list >> is cumulative. It does not say only those who voted, it says anyone on >> that voters list whic include both pervious members and those who >> joined by signing the on to the charter in the act of voting. >> >> what i am not sure about is someone who has quit the list since then. >> since a basic requirement for membership is being on the list. >> >> a. >> >> On 24 Aug 2009, at 12:40, David Souter wrote: >> >>> Dear Ginger: >>> >>> Your answer raises a separate question. >>> >>> Do you mean here that only people who actually voted in the last >>> coordinator election will be entitled to vote on this amendment, or >>> that those who were entitled to vote at that time will be entitled >>> now? >>> >>> There could be quite a substantial difference. >>> >>> David Souter >>> >>> >>> ----- Start Original Message ----- >>> Sent: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 >>> From: Ginger Paque >>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: >>> requirement >>> >>>> >>>> Hello Charity and all. I am replying to the list, because several >>>> people >>> have had this same question. >>> >>> The requirement for voting for a proposed amendment to the charter is >>> different from an election, for instance, of a co-coordinator. The >>> Charter states that **³The membership requirements for amending the >>> charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In >>> amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election >>> will be >>> deemed a member for amending the charter."** That list is at >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >>> >>> A "normal" election requires, as you note, that one be a member for at >>> least two months. As I understand it, in order to take part in a >>> vote on >>> a charter amendment, you must have voted in the previous election, in >>> this case, the last co-coordinator election in December, 2008. >>> >>> Please correct me if I am wrong. >>> >>> If anyone has other questions, or would like any clarification, please >>> post them. >>> >>> Thanks! Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> Charity Gamboa wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ginger, >>> >>> I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I >>> assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC >>> you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is >>> subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election >>> will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last >>> updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. >>> Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a >>> member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely >>> appreciate any clarifications. >>> >>> Thanks! :) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Charity >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear IGC members, >>> >>> A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please >>> see full details below and attached). >>> >>> IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment >>> on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would >>> like to express. >>> >>> The Charter states that ³The membership requirements for >>> amending the charter are based on the most currently available >>> voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the >>> previous election will be deemed a member for amending the >>> charter." That list is at >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. >>> >>> Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, >>> please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a >>> good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and >>> obligation to vote. >>> >>> Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm >>> whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society >>> members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of >>> "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement >>> with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please >>> use the "abstain" option ­ that allows us to keep you on the >>> updated membership list as a current member. >>> >>> The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for >>> two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results >>> will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to >>> receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September >>> 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote >>> and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me >>> directly. >>> >>> Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the >>> task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ginger Paque >>> for >>> Ginger Paque and Ian Peter >>> IGC Co-coordinators >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: >>> >>> According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made >>> according to the following process: >>> >>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer >>> than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds >>> (2/3) >>> of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending >>> the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. >>> In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous >>> election >>> will be >>> deemed a member for amending the charter. >>> >>> Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, >>> the >>> undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the >>> charter (attached to this email) that will make it less >>> problematic to >>> deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the >>> future. Part >>> of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole >>> responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having >>> any clear >>> guidelines or >>> assistance. >>> >>> In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for >>> Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists " >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt >>> RFC 3934 and " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management >>> of IETF >>> Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt , as >>> well as the >>> rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. >>> >>> The proposed amendment contains the following elements: >>> >>> - statement of the purpose of the IGC list >>> - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC >>> lists that may be created >>> - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) >>> >>> We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they >>> desire >>> to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the >>> posting rules have been infringed. The decision and >>> responsibility of >>> when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. >>> >>> If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current >>> members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the >>> following manner: >>> >>> a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be >>> taken >>> b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree >>> that action needs to be taken >>> c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to >>> consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken >>> >>> The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current >>> charter: >>> >>>> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >>>> Any decision to remove someone from the list will >>>> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >>> >>> Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Carlos A.Afonso >>> Vittorio Bertola >>> Wilie Curie >>> Avri Doria (co-author) >>> Wiliam Drake >>> Bret Fausett >>> Robin Gross >>> Michael Gurstein >>> Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> Lee W. McKnight >>> Jacqueline A. Morris >>> Adam Peake >>> Parminder Singh >>> David Souter >>> Christopher Wilkinson >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> ----- End Original Message ----- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Tue Aug 25 16:51:55 2009 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:51:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <4A94109C.7070708@itforchange.net> References: <76484.77630.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <12EB41C3-5936-4E2E-9756-DF99B959CB61@st-kilda.org> <5876A7ED-17CA-4CF1-B13F-493B66955CED@psg.com> <4A93ECDD.9070104@itforchange.net> <4A94109C.7070708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <188FBB21-479D-41AA-815A-F5FE9BDA249C@st-kilda.org> On 25 Aug 2009, at 17:26, Parminder wrote: > My preference in to allow all those who have been IGC members for > sufficiently long time, say 9-12 months, to vote for charter > amendment. I am even agreeable to Avri's logic, that as an abundant > caution against possible capture, we may add a condition like, the > member should have voted at least once before or such. But this is > not what the charter says at present. Having a requirement to have voted at least once before leaves us in the same unsatisfactory position of random lengths of membership so any change to such a position is in my opinion completely worthless. Regards f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From babatope at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 17:09:19 2009 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:09:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: In-Reply-To: <11746429.1251233273074.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <11746429.1251233273074.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hi all, While I've not read every single line posted in the past couple of weeks, I find myself asking what we seek to achieve with all of this? I also wonder if perhaps, we've not forgotten the 'real' reason this list started off. I've done a quick look at our recent list activities & wonder if we've not expended much more energy than its necessary by failing to adher to such small details like; 1) Give the other party the benefit of doubt 2) Disagree, discuss & criticise an opinion/idea without the negative bonus of running down the person 3) State your position but don't assume it *must *be followed 4) The sum of all is better than its part Anyway, I'm sure the work each of us does in our different localities continue but for me, I'm take a break. Best, On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Ian and ll, > > I wish I could trust Gingers judgment and sense of fairness, > but I cannot given her recent name calling of myself and others. > As such Ginger along with a few others have demonstrated by their > own actions and words that their behavior and especially ethical > judgment leaves far too much to be desired accordingly Ian. > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Ian Peter > >Sent: Aug 24, 2009 3:37 PM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria > >Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: > > > >The list of members compiled after the last election which is being > referred > >to includes all previously affirmed members, irrespective of whether they > >voted or not in the last co-ordinator election, plus new members who > voted. > >I have checked that this is so. So there are people on the list who are > >members but may not have voted last time. They should all receive a ballot > >paper IMHO (unless they have left the list or are deceased). > > > >As Coordinators Ginger and I will have to deal with any individual > anomalies > >that arise here and interpret the Charter as best we can. (One possibility > I > >can think of is someone who was on the list for more than two months prior > >to the last election, can confirm they are civil society, but did not vote > >so was not added to the list). Anyone in such a position should contact > >Ginger and myself immediately off list and we will make an appropriate > >judgement as regards validity. > > > >Ginger and I will also have to interpret whether people still on the list > at > >January 29 2009 are still valid members for purposes of a vote. I am > >inclined to suggest that those who are deceased or who have left the list > >are not to be counted. > > > >Ginger and I will do the best we can to run this process smoothly, and > >hopefully without too much process discussion. We may have to make some > >judgements as regards validity of votes in accordance with the Charter, > and > >we will do so and announce our conclusions to the list with our reasoning. > >Of course anything we do can be the subject of an appeal at the end of the > >process (which is a good protective mechanism!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(at My understanding of a valid voter would be > > > >1. Anyone on the list compiled after last coordinator election (the list > at > >http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E.) > > > >Plus > > > >2. Anyone on the previous members list from > > > > > >On 25/08/09 3:26 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > >> hi, > >> > >> My assumption is that everyone who was on the members list at the time > >> of that last election (members who either voted then or who were > >> already members) is a voting member for the amendment since the list > >> is cumulative. It does not say only those who voted, it says anyone on > >> that voters list whic include both pervious members and those who > >> joined by signing the on to the charter in the act of voting. > >> > >> what i am not sure about is someone who has quit the list since then. > >> since a basic requirement for membership is being on the list. > >> > >> a. > >> > >> On 24 Aug 2009, at 12:40, David Souter wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Ginger: > >>> > >>> Your answer raises a separate question. > >>> > >>> Do you mean here that only people who actually voted in the last > >>> coordinator election will be entitled to vote on this amendment, or > >>> that those who were entitled to vote at that time will be entitled > >>> now? > >>> > >>> There could be quite a substantial difference. > >>> > >>> David Souter > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Start Original Message ----- > >>> Sent: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:56:00 -0430 > >>> From: Ginger Paque > >>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Vote on proposed amendment to IGC charter: > >>> requirement > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello Charity and all. I am replying to the list, because several > >>>> people > >>> have had this same question. > >>> > >>> The requirement for voting for a proposed amendment to the charter is > >>> different from an election, for instance, of a co-coordinator. The > >>> Charter states that **³The membership requirements for amending the > >>> charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In > >>> amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > >>> will be > >>> deemed a member for amending the charter."** That list is at > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. > >>> > >>> A "normal" election requires, as you note, that one be a member for at > >>> least two months. As I understand it, in order to take part in a > >>> vote on > >>> a charter amendment, you must have voted in the previous election, in > >>> this case, the last co-coordinator election in December, 2008. > >>> > >>> Please correct me if I am wrong. > >>> > >>> If anyone has other questions, or would like any clarification, please > >>> post them. > >>> > >>> Thanks! Best, Ginger > >>> > >>> > >>> Charity Gamboa wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Ginger, > >>> > >>> I joined IGC January 2009. Please correct me if I am wrong if I > >>> assumed that when you are a member for at least 2 months with the IGC > >>> you can vote. It says in the Charter that "Each person who is > >>> subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election > >>> will be given a voter account." The list of IGC members was last > >>> updated January 29 but I do not see my name as member of that list. > >>> Does this mean then that I cannot vote? Or basically I am not a > >>> member of IGC because I am not on the list? Will definitely > >>> appreciate any clarifications. > >>> > >>> Thanks! :) > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Charity > >>> > >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Ginger Paque > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear IGC members, > >>> > >>> A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please > >>> see full details below and attached). > >>> > >>> IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment > >>> on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would > >>> like to express. > >>> > >>> The Charter states that ³The membership requirements for > >>> amending the charter are based on the most currently available > >>> voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the > >>> previous election will be deemed a member for amending the > >>> charter." That list is at > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. > >>> > >>> Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, > >>> please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a > >>> good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and > >>> obligation to vote. > >>> > >>> Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm > >>> whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society > >>> members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of > >>> "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement > >>> with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please > >>> use the "abstain" option ­ that allows us to keep you on the > >>> updated membership list as a current member. > >>> > >>> The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for > >>> two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results > >>> will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to > >>> receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September > >>> 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote > >>> and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me > >>> directly. > >>> > >>> Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the > >>> task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Ginger Paque > >>> for > >>> Ginger Paque and Ian Peter > >>> IGC Co-coordinators > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > >>> > >>> According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > >>> according to the following process: > >>> > >>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > >>> than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds > >>> (2/3) > >>> of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > >>> the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > >>> In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous > >>> election > >>> will be > >>> deemed a member for amending the charter. > >>> > >>> Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, > >>> the > >>> undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the > >>> charter (attached to this email) that will make it less > >>> problematic to > >>> deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the > >>> future. Part > >>> of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole > >>> responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having > >>> any clear > >>> guidelines or > >>> assistance. > >>> > >>> In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > >>> Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists " > >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > >>> RFC 3934 and " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management > >>> of IETF > >>> Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt , as > >>> well as the > >>> rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > >>> > >>> The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > >>> > >>> - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > >>> - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > >>> lists that may be created > >>> - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > >>> > >>> We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they > >>> desire > >>> to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > >>> posting rules have been infringed. The decision and > >>> responsibility of > >>> when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > >>> > >>> If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > >>> members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > >>> following manner: > >>> > >>> a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be > >>> taken > >>> b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > >>> that action needs to be taken > >>> c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > >>> consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > >>> > >>> The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current > >>> charter: > >>> > >>>> ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. > >>>> Any decision to remove someone from the list will > >>>> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > >>> > >>> Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Carlos A.Afonso > >>> Vittorio Bertola > >>> Wilie Curie > >>> Avri Doria (co-author) > >>> Wiliam Drake > >>> Bret Fausett > >>> Robin Gross > >>> Michael Gurstein > >>> Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >>> Jeremy Malcolm > >>> Lee W. McKnight > >>> Jacqueline A. Morris > >>> Adam Peake > >>> Parminder Singh > >>> David Souter > >>> Christopher Wilkinson > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- End Original Message ----- > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, 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 > > Regards, > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability > depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of > Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com > Phone: 214-244-4827 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Babatope Soremi I'm totally sold out to changing my world for good.... Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Aug 25 17:09:59 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:09:59 +1000 Subject: [governance] Public warning to Jeffrey A Williams re multiple postings In-Reply-To: <11746429.1251233273074.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jeffrey, Please restrict your postings to less than 5 per day and keep your postings relevant to the subject matter of this list. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 25 21:56:25 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Free Speech and Blogging Message-ID: <761212.9716.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Wow I just had a "Chat" with a jailed and disbarred lawyer.  His arrest and disbarment came because he dared to represent bloggers who were charged with nefarious anti-government activity for promoting free speech.   (as some will understand the rest is in wink and nod speech so as not to ring any censorship bells)   This man does not oppose his government in any way.  He defends those charged with speaking illegally.  He does not wear his badge of honor of detention and loss of pursuit of his chosen work with pride.  He remains humble and even ashamed of being held to have violated anything against his beloved motherland.   I did not chat with him as a lawyer as I owe no allegiance to any restraint of trade Bar association.  I did not chat with him as a human rights protagonist for I am not worthy. I spoke to him as a minister. Not to guide him or even console him, but to examine his agnostic soul. To examine what it takes to risk real life and limb for freedom of speech.   He is born and bred and raised a socialist.  He does not act for individual rights. He acts for what he believes is the inalienable rights of society. Not what a man can do for himself but what his free speech can do for others.  And he does this with humility. A self worth that is only as valuable as what he can do for others. He is a true Communist, a man in league with the earliest and most noble causes of a free society. A communist that believes less governance is better, but that all should be done for community.   He is resigned to go back to jail. He will not leave or run from his homeland for what we would call freedom.  And now no one can repeat his words for fear of what it would do to him.   The only true role of Internet Governance is to protect the individual from the state and the state like mega corps that usurp our freedoms.  I urge all here not to determine who is to vote or who is to speak based upon the maintenance of the status quo, but upon the notion that to restrict is to hurt.   (some will know me well enough to know of what country and whom I speak  --  I ask you to keep that to yourself)   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 25 22:06:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Offlist Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <4A93D095.7030402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <707414.25536.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is what it is all about.  The results will not be perfect but the "public" input and rising debate is essential.  Scuze' Moi, I am all tingly with good feelings.  Some may like a good fut ball match while others love to make money,,,,  Me I like a good governance structure in the making and democracy beginning to take root.  "Freedom of Speech don't mean crap if it ain't exercised"  I wish I could vote just so I could hold up my blue finger and dance to freedoms great tune!!  But as we can see it is OK if I cannot vote as long as my position is heard, as long as I have the right -- gauranteeeed to partake and meet my responsibilities.   Pardon me, back to rabble rousing. --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Offlist Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members To: "Fearghas McKay" , "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 11:52 AM Hi Fearghas and all, This is the first time all of this has come up, because it is the first charter amendment vote, so the charter rules were never tested in a practical situation. We are working on a clarification, precisely for the reasons you and others have stated very clearly here. Thanks for your input and patience. Best, Ginger Fearghas McKay wrote: On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:22, Roland Perry wrote: That's what Capture is about, and any sensible entity will have anti-capture rules. My concern about the capture rules which are fine in principle is the the fact that you may not be able to vote on charter changes for a random period of time ranging from just over 2 months to 14 months. If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of time is acceptable. Perhaps for future charter changes an addition should  be made to this change setting a fixed time period as happens with voting for coordinators, I would suggest 6 months bit since I am voteless I will leave it to others to propose a timescale to protect the charter from "drive by" abuse. Regards     Fearghas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 25 22:25:20 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <874418.82231.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Oh my Roland!!!  I forgot, there are thousands out there willing to do this work and they want to come and take control.  And they could CApture us. What planet did this worry come from?  The evil hordes do not want to do this.  A great goundswell of interested parties would be no less valuable or qualified than you and the folks who orginally captured this list.   Those of us who want a Governance to protect the individual user as opposed to the standing self appointed experts and their regime have to fight tooth and nail not to be abused and dishonored here.  Are you saying that the people should not have a voice, only Avri's founders and fathers should decide the governance of the internet?   So when you speak of capture do your homework and realize that the intent of this list was not to make you and the original members the all time majority  ----  but rather to find a governance in keeping with the principals of the UN Articles -- So it is truly you who have already captured. --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Roland Perry wrote: From: Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 9:22 AM In message <76484.77630.qm at web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 18:43:25 on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Eric Dierker writes > What an example this list is setting for governance everywhere. >   > "we will decide who is a member based on our discretion" "only those we deem members may vote" So you won't mind if I round up a couple of hundred of my friends, and get them to become instant list members, and vote the way I ask them to? That's what Capture is about, and any sensible entity will have anti-capture rules. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 25 23:18:05 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Capture is not a Justification Message-ID: <946559.94112.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> A boogeyman is being created to justify preclusion of participation. Do not fall victim to a scapegoat type argument. No one in the world wants to capture this responsibility.  Only those who cannot provide reasonable grounds for their positions would be worried about sharing the membership.   As is clear from the many posts regarding rights to vote and membership criterion there are not serious and clear guidelines established that give grounds for preclusion.   The only option in this situation is to declare an open period in which to register to vote.  The only obvious requirements that are fair and already known are a desire to participate and previous participation.  It is not possibly fair to say "although it was not known until today, only those who participated in this certain way before can participate now."   Fear is not a reasonable grounds for governing.  Fear of the unkown is always present and should never be a motivation for restricting rights. "The only action that should be taken to prevent the unkown is to shed light on the dark" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 02:26:04 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Beyond the charter, rules of posting Message-ID: Hello Coordinators, Moderators and Members of the Caucus, The discussion on list behavior has dominated discussions here for the last few weeks. This happens to be a microcosmic representation of the larger issue of Internet Governance. The issue is a Participation issue, it is a Freedom of Expression against Censorship issue, Rights and Privileges issue - it is an overall Governance issue. We need to go beyond simple solutions such as a 5 messages per member per day to tackle this issue. The Charter or the Rules of Posting are broad indications of what the list is meant for and how it would function. The day to day functions are more 'governed' by implied obligations, conventions and etiquette. If someone confirms to 5 messages per day limit but talks nonsense, then he or she is violating the fundamental norms. If someone confirms to the language and expression guidelines but happens to be posting acceptably worded nonsense, then he or she is violating the norms of the list. What is important is to determine if the participant shows evidence of understanding about the importance and significance of the list. Fifteen years ago US Consulate in Chennai had a one page leaflet outlining the process of decision for a VISA. It said something that amounted to APPROXIMATE HINTS on what the Consulate was looking for. It said we may look for evidence that the applicant has more reasons to return to India than to extend his stay. Proof of Income or Property papers or evidence of employment, or evidence of family commitments - everything could help the VISA officer decide that the applicant would limit his stay in the United States and not become an illegal immigrant. The leaflet said, *"We can't tell you what we are looking for, but we need to be convinced that ... "*[the applicant would not become an illegal immigrant.] So, the Consulate was not asking for anything specific - there were no rules that a visa application has to have a statement of income or a marriage certificate as attachments. If someone could step in without even an Invitation Letter or a clear travel itinerary but could impress the VISA officer that he or she is respectable and would return back to India after two or three weeks, the officer had the freedom to grant the VISA. If someone else applied for VISA with exhaustive paperwork with letters from sponsors etc., all of which looked very good as paper work, but if the VISA officer didn't get the impression that the applicant would return, the officer had all the freedom to reject the application. The arbitrariness granted to the Consulate Offices could always be abused. But the reality of the situation is that no country can afford a visa process that is reduced a set of rigid rules. If any country says "show me a bank statement with ten thousand dollars available for your travel, show me a round trip ticket and show me an invitation letter, and your visa will be granted automatically", any one can create a deceptive initial appearance and there would be chaos every where BECAUSE it is all by rules, and rules are rigidly followed. The point is only about the need for judgment in the absence of rules or precedent situations. If Milton Mueller posts six messages on a certain day it is not even necessary to send him a gentle mail informing him of the count. If Ginger writes a few lines with a new thread headline to say something light about a movie that she watched last night, we all understand that this rare and wouldn't raise objections or protest that it does not confirm to the rules of posting. On the contrary if someone destructive posts five message PER MONTH and one line, or one word in any of these messages happens to be intentionally destructive and motivatedly goes against the essential principles, then he or she could be unsubscribed. If the coordinator/moderator's decision is right, the list can always understand that the situation beyond the provisions of the charter, beyond rules and guidelines. What the list now needs is judgment. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 26 02:25:57 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:25:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members In-Reply-To: <874418.82231.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <0Xqt87fR16kKFAEj@perry.co.uk> <874418.82231.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <874418.82231.qm at web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 19:25:20 on Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Eric Dierker writes >Oh my Roland!!!  I forgot, there are thousands out there willing to do this work and they want to come and take control.  And they could >CApture us. What planet did this worry come from?  The evil hordes do not want to do this.  A great goundswell of interested parties would be >no less valuable or qualified than you and the folks who orginally captured this list. >  >Those of us who want a Governance to protect the individual user as opposed to the standing self appointed experts and their regime have to >fight tooth and nail not to be abused and dishonored here.  Are you saying that the people should not have a voice, only Avri's founders and >fathers should decide the governance of the internet? >  >So when you speak of capture do your homework and realize that the intent of this list was not to make you and the original members the all >time majority  ----  but rather to find a governance in keeping with the principals of the UN Articles -- So it is truly you who have already >captured. Firstly, you must be confusing me with someone else, because I've only been on this list for a little over a year. Secondly, the issue of rounding up 'friends' to capture a vote for coordinator or charter isn't about those "hordes" having their individual voices. In this hypothetical scenario (although I have seen something similar happen elsewhere, so it's not an impossible scenario), they would be my puppets, and disappear as soon as the vote was over. (And as for ^groundswell" people having a voice - of course they must join the list and express their views, that's what it's for. The only issue at stake at the moment is what rules there should be to ensure a few individuals don't overwhelm the list with distracting postings.) Regards, -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Aug 26 04:26:38 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:26:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Netiquette References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871944F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI Please red it carefully :-))))))) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette 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 kboakye at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 13:27:33 2009 From: kboakye at gmail.com (Kwasi) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:27:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: Anger at UK file-sharing policy Message-ID: <20090826_172733_066635.kboakye@gmail.com> Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it. ** Anger at UK file-sharing policy ** UK service providers have pledged to fight government proposals to toughen penalties for online pirates. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/technology/8219652.stm > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all in one daily e-mail < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > ** Disclaimer ** The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified. If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 26 21:00:00 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Just Ask yourself Message-ID: <533598.23944.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Who would fund an exclusionary Governance List?   Would someone fund a think tank made up of just the Members allowed to vote? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From alice at apc.org Thu Aug 27 06:17:38 2009 From: alice at apc.org (alice) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:17:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [kictanet] Invitation: 2009 EA-IGF, 7-9 September 2009, Nairobi, Kenya] Message-ID: <4A965D42.5020505@apc.org> Dear Colleagues, The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet), the Kenya Network Information Centre (KENIC) in collaboration with other organisations are pleased to invite you to the second East African Internet Governance Forum (EA-IGF 2009) to be held at the Jacaranda hotel in Nairobi, Kenya, from *7th to 9th September 2009*. The forums theme is:* Advancing the Internet Governance Debate in East Africa: /“Thinking Globally; Acting Locally”/*/. / The 2009 EA-IGF is a follow up to the inaugural EA-IGF that was held in November 2008 in Nairobi, which aimed at catalysing the internet governance debate in the East African sub region. With the increased access to broadband infrastructure in the East Africa region and the continued spread of sophisticated mobile services, understanding and addressing Internet policy issues has become a priority. The national and regional EA-IGF’s will help prepare East African stakeholders to address the opportunities, strengths and challenges that arise, as well as ensuring that they have a voice in shaping Internet policy decisions at the global level. This year’s EAIGF therefore seeks to continue to strengthen the national and regional dialogues on Internet Governance as well as; * Increase awareness of Internet Governance issues, including but not limited to local content and cyber security; * Continue to develop capacity and skills of various stakeholders and build regional consensus IG issues; and * Begin to discuss the development of a regional East African Communication policy, among others. The outcomes of the forum will be submitted to the East Africa Regulatory, Postal and Telecommunications Organization (EARPTO), the African Parliamentary Knowledge Network (APKN), as well as, the fourth United Nations Internet Governance Forum (UNIGF) taking place in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2009. The EA-IGF will also set the stage for the 37th Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) meeting to be held in Nairobi, Kenya, in March 2010. For planning purposes, please register for the meeting at http://www.eaigf.or.ke or send an email to meeting at eaigf.or.ke confirming your attendance; *by 2nd September 2009*. Kind Regards, *----------- Vincent Ngundi Administrative Manager KENIC - The Kenya Network Information Centre http://www.kenic.or.ke vincent at kenic.or.ke [T] +254 20 4450057/8 [C] +254 20 2398036 [M] +254 733 790073 [F] +254 20 4450087 /“dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!”/* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: file:///C|/USERS/IPM/APPDATA/LOCAL/TEMP/nsmail-6.txt URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Aug 27 07:11:49 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:11:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Membership Message-ID: Since the Charter specifies two months "Voting Process Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account." the membership list dated January 2009 "List of members Members as of 29 January 2009" should be updated. Also the time limitations for voting should be stipulated, or at least mentioned, under "Membership" which currently reads "Membership The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." I don't think I have been "here" for quite 2 months yet so I have no personal agenda to follow. However, since I am entitled to an opinion, I agree with Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, whose message should be included below. I understand that message to be in support of flexibility, and perhaps a warning against very stringent rules that may in the end hang you. My job is teaching. One of the lessons learned in an interactive class situation is that there are times when it is very useful to be deaf :-) Deirdre 2009/8/26 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : > Hello Coordinators, Moderators and Members of the Caucus, > > The discussion on list behavior has dominated discussions here for the last > few weeks. This happens to be a microcosmic representation of the larger > issue of Internet Governance. The issue is a Participation issue, it is a > Freedom of Expression against Censorship issue, Rights and Privileges issue > - it is an overall Governance issue. > > We need to go beyond simple solutions such as a 5 messages per member per > day to tackle this issue. The Charter or the Rules of Posting are broad > indications of what the list is meant for and how it would function. The day > to day functions are more 'governed' by implied obligations, conventions and > etiquette. > > If someone confirms to 5 messages per day limit but talks nonsense, then he > or she is violating the fundamental norms. If someone confirms to the > language and expression guidelines but happens to be posting acceptably > worded nonsense, then he or she is violating the norms of the list. What is > important is to determine if the participant shows evidence of understanding > about the importance and significance of the list. > > Fifteen years ago US Consulate in Chennai had a one page leaflet outlining > the process of decision for a VISA. It said something that amounted to > APPROXIMATE HINTS on what the Consulate was looking for. It said we may look > for evidence that the applicant has more reasons to return to India than to > extend his stay. Proof of Income or Property papers or evidence of > employment, or evidence of family commitments - everything could help the > VISA officer decide that the applicant would limit his stay in the United > States and not become an illegal immigrant. The leaflet said, "We can't tell > you what we are looking for, but we need to be convinced that ... " [the > applicant would not become an illegal immigrant.] So, the Consulate was not > asking for anything specific - there were no rules that a visa application > has to have a statement of income or a marriage certificate as attachments. > If someone could step in without even an Invitation Letter or a clear travel > itinerary but could impress the VISA officer that he or she is respectable > and would return back to India after two or three weeks, the officer had the > freedom to grant the VISA. If someone else applied for VISA with exhaustive > paperwork with letters from sponsors etc., all of which looked very good as > paper work, but if the VISA officer didn't get the impression that the > applicant would return, the officer had all the freedom to reject the > application. > > The arbitrariness granted to the Consulate Offices could always be abused. > But the reality of the situation is that no country can afford a visa > process that is reduced a set of rigid rules. If any country says "show me a > bank statement with ten thousand dollars available for your travel, show me > a round trip ticket and show me an invitation letter, and your visa will be > granted automatically", any one can create a deceptive initial appearance > and there would be chaos every where BECAUSE it is all by rules, and rules > are rigidly followed. > > The point is only about the need for judgment in the absence of rules or > precedent situations. If Milton Mueller posts six messages on a certain day > it is not even necessary to send him a gentle mail informing him of the > count. If Ginger writes a few lines with a new thread headline to say > something light about a movie that she watched last night, we all understand > that this rare and wouldn't raise objections or protest that it does not > confirm to the rules of posting. On the contrary if someone destructive > posts five message PER MONTH and one line, or one word in any of these > messages happens to be intentionally destructive and motivatedly goes > against the essential principles, then he or she could be unsubscribed. > > If the coordinator/moderator's decision is right, the list can always > understand that the situation beyond the provisions of the charter, beyond > rules and guidelines. > > What the list now needs is judgment. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Aug 27 10:31:00 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? Message-ID: Are ther any more Ideas on how to; Fund the Right's Entitlements, and stem the appropriation of Political Entitlements? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 27 11:52:44 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <948429.56143.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yes.   By remaining vigil in pushing existing funded models like this one to take up the cause as part of their work.   Or exposing their refusal and going after those funds, that are available but co-opted for country club think tanks of dubious openness and transparency.   Funding is all around. The problem is that it is not going to projects but to connected individuals with a different agenda. Most do not want this type of list "captured" by those who believe that governance should be all about individual user rights. --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 2:31 PM Are ther any more Ideas on how to; Fund the Right's Entitlements, and stem the appropriation of Political Entitlements? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vanda at uol.com.br Thu Aug 27 11:58:04 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:58:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [kictanet] Invitation: 2009 EA-IGF, 7-9 September 2009, Nairobi, Kenya] In-Reply-To: <4A965D42.5020505@apc.org> References: <4A965D42.5020505@apc.org> Message-ID: <00ae01ca272f$2b022ef0$81068cd0$@com.br> Let's wish to you and all African members a huge success and an output with important contribution to the IGF. Best regards Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice at apc.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:18 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [kictanet] Invitation: 2009 EA-IGF, 7-9 September 2009, Nairobi, Kenya] Dear Colleagues, The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet), the Kenya Network Information Centre (KENIC) in collaboration with other organisations are pleased to invite you to the second East African Internet Governance Forum (EA-IGF 2009) to be held at the Jacaranda hotel in Nairobi, Kenya, from *7th to 9th September 2009*. The forums theme is:* Advancing the Internet Governance Debate in East Africa: /"Thinking Globally; Acting Locally"/*/. / The 2009 EA-IGF is a follow up to the inaugural EA-IGF that was held in November 2008 in Nairobi, which aimed at catalysing the internet governance debate in the East African sub region. With the increased access to broadband infrastructure in the East Africa region and the continued spread of sophisticated mobile services, understanding and addressing Internet policy issues has become a priority. The national and regional EA-IGF's will help prepare East African stakeholders to address the opportunities, strengths and challenges that arise, as well as ensuring that they have a voice in shaping Internet policy decisions at the global level. This year's EAIGF therefore seeks to continue to strengthen the national and regional dialogues on Internet Governance as well as; * Increase awareness of Internet Governance issues, including but not limited to local content and cyber security; * Continue to develop capacity and skills of various stakeholders and build regional consensus IG issues; and * Begin to discuss the development of a regional East African Communication policy, among others. The outcomes of the forum will be submitted to the East Africa Regulatory, Postal and Telecommunications Organization (EARPTO), the African Parliamentary Knowledge Network (APKN), as well as, the fourth United Nations Internet Governance Forum (UNIGF) taking place in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2009. The EA-IGF will also set the stage for the 37th Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) meeting to be held in Nairobi, Kenya, in March 2010. For planning purposes, please register for the meeting at http://www.eaigf.or.ke or send an email to meeting at eaigf.or.ke confirming your attendance; *by 2nd September 2009*. Kind Regards, *----------- Vincent Ngundi Administrative Manager KENIC - The Kenya Network Information Centre http://www.kenic.or.ke vincent at kenic.or.ke [T] +254 20 4450057/8 [C] +254 20 2398036 [M] +254 733 790073 [F] +254 20 4450087 /"dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!"/* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Aug 27 12:48:30 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:48:30 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] [Fwd: [kictanet] Invitation: 2009 EA-IGF, References: <4A965D42.5020505@apc.org> <00ae01ca272f$2b022ef0$81068cd0$@com.br> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719480@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Grerat. Wish you all success. And please join and report back to the IGF Dynamoc Coaliation on national and regional IGFs in Sharm el Sheikh. Wolfgang Dear Colleagues, The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet), the Kenya Network Information Centre (KENIC) in collaboration with other organisations are pleased to invite you to the second East African Internet Governance Forum (EA-IGF 2009) to be held at the Jacaranda hotel in Nairobi, Kenya, from *7th to 9th September 2009*. The forums theme is:* Advancing the Internet Governance Debate in East Africa: /"Thinking Globally; Acting Locally"/*/. / The 2009 EA-IGF is a follow up to the inaugural EA-IGF that was held in November 2008 in Nairobi, which aimed at catalysing the internet governance debate in the East African sub region. With the increased access to broadband infrastructure in the East Africa region and the continued spread of sophisticated mobile services, understanding and addressing Internet policy issues has become a priority. The national and regional EA-IGF's will help prepare East African stakeholders to address the opportunities, strengths and challenges that arise, as well as ensuring that they have a voice in shaping Internet policy decisions at the global level. This year's EAIGF therefore seeks to continue to strengthen the national and regional dialogues on Internet Governance as well as; * Increase awareness of Internet Governance issues, including but not limited to local content and cyber security; * Continue to develop capacity and skills of various stakeholders and build regional consensus IG issues; and * Begin to discuss the development of a regional East African Communication policy, among others. The outcomes of the forum will be submitted to the East Africa Regulatory, Postal and Telecommunications Organization (EARPTO), the African Parliamentary Knowledge Network (APKN), as well as, the fourth United Nations Internet Governance Forum (UNIGF) taking place in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2009. The EA-IGF will also set the stage for the 37th Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) meeting to be held in Nairobi, Kenya, in March 2010. For planning purposes, please register for the meeting at http://www.eaigf.or.ke or send an email to meeting at eaigf.or.ke confirming your attendance; *by 2nd September 2009*. Kind Regards, *----------- Vincent Ngundi Administrative Manager KENIC - The Kenya Network Information Centre http://www.kenic.or.ke vincent at kenic.or.ke [T] +254 20 4450057/8 [C] +254 20 2398036 [M] +254 733 790073 [F] +254 20 4450087 /"dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!"/* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Aug 27 15:31:52 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? In-Reply-To: 948429.56143.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com Message-ID: Thats a nice ambigous answer Eric, Please explain the Entitlement's Cash-Flow to us, Staring from the Source(s) to the Expenditures, in some detail. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 27 15:31:36 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:31:36 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Complex Networks, ccing and talking too much. Message-ID: <15365270.1251401496216.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 27 15:34:49 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:49 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Truth in Statements was: Statement by IGC Message-ID: <17221944.1251401689512.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 27 15:38:04 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:38:04 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Message-ID: <33463612.1251401884885.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Katitza and all, Yes I've read much of what Bruce has to say. He is essentially correct as well here. None the less such forms of Censorship are fundementally wrong and wrong headed. -----Original Message----- >From: katitza at datos-personales.org >Sent: Aug 23, 2009 6:38 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > >Holas! > >I like how Bruce Schneier frame this discussion on Internet Censorship. >China's actions as well as those similar actions held by Democratic >governments around the world. The full article is here. > > See http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0908.html > >Here I highlight a few paragraphs: > >"China is the world's most successful Internet censor. While the Great >Firewall of China isn't perfect, it effectively limits information flowing >in and out of the country. But now the Chinese government is taking things >one step further." >(...) >"Green Dam has many uses. It can police a list of forbidden Web sites. It >can monitor a user's reading habits. It can even enlist the computer in >some massive botnet attack, as part of a hypothetical future cyberwar." >(...) >China's actions may be extreme, but they're not unique. Democratic >governments around the world -- Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom, for >example -- are rushing to pass laws giving their police new powers of >Internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system >providers to redesign products and services they sell. >(...) >Many are passing data retention laws, forcing companies to keep >information on their customers. Just recently, the German government >proposed giving itself the power to censor the Internet. >(...) >"The United States is no exception. The 1994 CALEA law required phone >companies to facilitate FBI eavesdropping, and since 2001, the NSA has >built substantial eavesdropping systems in the United States. The >government has repeatedly proposed Internet data retention laws, allowing >surveillance into past activities as well as present." >(...) > >"Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids >totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, >and Secure Computing built Iran's surveillance infrastructure. U.S. >companies helped build China's electronic police state. Twitter's >anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents -- anonymity that many >governments want to eliminate. > >Every year brings more Internet censorship and control -- not just in >countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United >Kingdom, Canada and other free countries." > >The full article is here >http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0908.html > > >> I agree with you both, Ginger and Katitza! >> I've been collaborating -and still do :)- with the Freedom on the Net >> Project at Freedom House, and this is my persective, too. Freedom of >> expression and privacy all togheter. >> Regards, >> Roxana >> >> >> >> 2009/8/23 >> >>> I agree, Ginger. We should remember that some stakeholders would prefer >>> to >>> highlight only freedom of expression and dismiss privacy. We should >>> always >>> add privacy in this kind of discussion, including the tensions between >>> privacy and freedom of expression that many international human rights >>> groups has work on it. >>> >>> I do not think that this discussion is too late! >>> >>> Katitza >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good >>> > overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the >>> > need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any >>> > specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom >>> > of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance >>> > is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across >>> > borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a >>> > strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open >>> > Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should >>> > have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles >>> to >>> > be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too >>> late >>> > to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is >>> > important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in >>> > laying the groundwork for next year.
>>> >
>>> > Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working >>> > draft?
>>> >
>>> > Best, Ginger
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >> > href=" >>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true >>> "> >>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true >>>
>>> >
>>> > >>> >

WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in >>> > Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter >>> > messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal >>> policing >>> > that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used >>> > Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist >>> > government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing >>> > role in political dissent.

>>> >

**Now >>> > governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts >>> > to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of >>> > information and the ability to communicate.**

>>> >
>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 27 16:40:46 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Netiquette Message-ID: <30737001.1251405646931.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Wolfgange and all, Wikipedia is a much less than accurate source for such information and has been sanctioned in almost every country for their inaccuracies so many times it is not possible for me to keep track of the count total. Ergo such a refrence is essentially worthless as being authoritative in any real sense. -----Original Message----- >From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >Sent: Aug 26, 2009 4:26 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Netiquette > >FYI >Please red it carefully :-))))))) > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette > >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 Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 27 16:48:45 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:18:45 -0430 Subject: [governance] Amendment to charter vote coming up! Message-ID: <4A96F12D.5080408@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-Posting Rules for the IGC-v4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71653 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-Posting Rules for the IGC-v4.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 68122 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Thu Aug 27 20:12:58 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:12:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] 18 Sept 2009 Workshop at ITU : Opening the Namespace infrastructures to Competition Message-ID: <4A97210A.60302@mdpi.net> * PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT* Expert Workshop 18 September 2009 *Informal Expert Workshop **http://net4d.org/18sep09-index.html* * * *The current situation concerning the Domain Name System is raising more and more interest as the end of the ICANN JPA in September is approaching . Instead of engaging into bitter debates on how to co-manage a quasi-monopoly, an informal workshop is organized to explore whether there are any technical alternatives for the development of future information networks ?. Is there an effective solution to open to competition name resolving services. ? This informal workshop is organized in the context of the expert mission that has been recently contracted by ITU to Dr. Francis Muguet . after his presentation, last May, at the WSIS Forum : Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure This expert mission is in line with the outcomes of the last ITU Council Working Group on WSIS , where ITU was requested to study the evolution of the future internet. The informal expert workshop is hosted at ITU headquarters, on Friday 18 September, which happens to occur after the European Dialogue on Internet Governance ( Monday 14 - Tuesday. 15 September ) and the IGF planning meeting ( Wednesday 16- Thursday 17 September ) in Geneva The workshop , organized by Dr. Francis Muguet , is going to include in the morning, presentations and a round table, and in the afternoon, open discussions. * -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net KNIS http://knis.org Academic Collaboration / University of Geneva http://syinf.unige.ch/cooperation Mobile France +33 6 71 91 42 10 Switzerland +41 78 927 06 97 Cameroun +237 96 55 69 62 ( mostly in July ) World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 60984 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Aug 27 21:50:07 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:50:07 +1000 Subject: [governance] Amendment to charter vote coming up! In-Reply-To: <4A96F12D.5080408@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Ginger for managing this process forward, and thank you to the team of people who went to the effort to get together names to propose this amendment ­ and there I think Avri Doria and Jeanette Hoffmann deserve special thanks. It¹s obvious there has been a problem on this list and that the co-ordinators hands have been somewhat tied ­ this Charter amendment will go a long way towards assisting future coordinators to handle difficult situations as they arise. I want to encourage everyone who receives a ballot in this election to make sure that they respond, whether they want to vote yes or no. A low turnout here is going to leave us with a long term problem that can¹t be easily handled. While this amendment doesn¹t solve all our problems, it is certainly a good step in the right direction and I believe deserves your support. So please, make sure you vote. This vote needs a strong response both in numbers of people responding and in numbers of people responding positively if the changes are to be made. So please don¹t forget, make a note now to remind yourself to vote before September 15. Your 90 seconds commitment to vote in the ballot will help make this list and civil society participation in IGF more effective. Ian Peter On 28/08/09 6:48 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Just a quick reminder--it is important that everyone who is entitled to vote > on the upcoming charter amendment proposal do so, no matter how they vote, or > even if they choose to abstain on the ballot. > > The short version: > The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for two weeks > (until September 15th). An announcement of the results will be made as soon as > possible thereafter. You should expect to receive a ballot paper before > Wednesday next week (September 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are > entitled to vote and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact > me directly. > > The ballot email from Derrick will contain clear instructions on how to cast > your vote. > > The long version below and attached. > > Regards, > Ginger > > Dear IGC members, > > A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please see full > details below and attached). > > IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment on the list > in case there are any doubts or opinions they would like to express. > > The Charter states that ³The membership requirements for amending the charter > are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the > charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member > for amending the charter." That list is at > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. > > Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, please be sure > to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a good way to keep the IGC on > track by exercising your right and obligation to vote. > > Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm whether they are > a member of civil society. Only civil society members are entitled to vote. > You will be given a choice of "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement > or non-agreement with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, > please use the "abstain" option ­ that allows us to keep you on the updated > membership list as a current member. > > The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for two weeks > (until September 15th). An announcement of the results will be made as soon as > possible thereafter. You should expect to receive a ballot paper before > Wednesday next week (September 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are > entitled to vote and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact > me directly. > > Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the task of > running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. > > Regards, > > Ginger Paque > for > Ginger Paque and Ian Peter > IGC Co-coordinators > > > > > To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: > > According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made > according to the following process: > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer > than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) > of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. > In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > will be > deemed a member for amending the charter. > > Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the > undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the > charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to > deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future. Part > of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole > responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having any clear > guidelines or > assistance. > > In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for > Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt > RFC 3934 and " Updates to > RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF > Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the > rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. > > The proposed amendment contains the following elements: > > - statement of the purpose of the IGC list > - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC > lists that may be created > - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) > > We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire > to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the > posting rules have been infringed. The decision and responsibility of > when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. > > If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current > members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the > following manner: > > a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken > b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree > that action needs to be taken > c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to > consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken > > The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > >> > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. >> > Any decision to remove someone from the list will >> > call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > > Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > Carlos A.Afonso > Vittorio Bertola > Wilie Curie > Avri Doria (co-author) > Wiliam Drake > Bret Fausett > Robin Gross > Michael Gurstein > Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Jeremy Malcolm > Lee W. McKnight > Jacqueline A. Morris > Adam Peake > Parminder Singh > David Souter > Christopher Wilkinson > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Fri Aug 28 04:43:42 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:43:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Sorry for the delayed response to this. What kind of statement were you thinking of Ginger? Something to submit by email, or feed in orally to the Geneva planning meeting? Do people feel that it should be something different to the statement that Anja put together a couple of weeks ago (pasted below). Maybe we want to include specific rights and issues - we started with free expression, and Katitiza emphasised the importance of privacy. We might also want to link it to what's already been proposed for the "security, openness and privacy" session (also pasted below) - does anyone have any specific comments on what's been proposed so far? Just to note again, the IRP coalition is meeting in Geneva on Sunday 13th - all are welcome, in person and virtually. All the best, Lisa Previous statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. The proposed IGF session: Security, Openness and Privacy: The discussion of this cluster of issues will be the focus of the afternoon of the second day. It will be introduced by a compact panel of practitioners to set the stage for the discussion and bring out options for how to deal with the policy and practical choices related to the different clusters of issues. The discussion should cover practical aspects of the coordination needed to secure the network (e.g. to fight spam) and their relationship to issues pertaining to openness (e.g. ensuring the open architecture of the Internet). Issues to be discussed will include: · The respect for privacy as a business advantage; · Identity theft, identity fraud, and information leakage. · Web 2.0; · Social networks; · Cloud computing and privacy, e.g. control of one's own data and data retention; · Cultural and technical perspectives on the regulation of illegal Web contents; · Regulatory models for privacy; · Ensuring the open architecture of the Internet; · Net Neutrality; · Enabling frameworks for freedom; · Ethical dimensions of the Internet. ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sun 23/08/2009 15:01 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC This article from "New Scientist" gives a good overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in laying the groundwork for next year. Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working draft? Best, Ginger http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing role in political dissent. **Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of information and the ability to communicate.** __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4361 (20090823) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 10360 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 28 06:57:37 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:27:37 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Fri Aug 28 07:41:23 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:41:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi In terms of practical suggestions, I wonder if it's worth suggesting that the IGC (and/or IRP coalition) is given the opportunity to work with all main session panel coordinators, panelists and moderators to ensure that the human rights dimension of the subject matter at hand is considered in all panel sessions. In my mind, human rights are relevant to all of them (access, diversity, critical resources etc), both in terms of the protection of human rights standards and in terms of making sure that the internet supports the positive dimensions of human rights and development (access to information, education, resources etc). (We'd also need some internal organisation amongst us to attend and contribute to sessions to ensure that rights dimensions are included in discussions). The human rights framework can also be used to balance competing "public interest" concerns, for example between security and freedom of expression, and contains specific guidance on when it is acceptable to limit certain rights in the name of protecting others. We could ask for such guidelines to be used or borne in mind in relevant discussions. We could also call for some space in the "emerging issues" session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles" in the context of internet governance, drawing on discussions held in the regional and international IGF. This would address the issue of "righst and principles" being rejected as a main session due to a lack of consensus about its meaning. Finally, we could call for space in the "Internet governance in the light of WSIS principles" session to reflect on the extent to which the IGF has reflected the WSIS recognition of the centrality of human rights to the information society. What do people think? NB, after today I'm away for a few days, but would be happy to draft a short statement when I'm back next week. I can't find the statement that we submitted in April - does anyone have a copy or know where to find it? All the best, Lisa ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Fri 28/08/2009 11:57 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC Hi Lisa and all, I was thinking of a similar statement to Lisa's and the IGC statement in April. Normally we submit the statement by email so the translators have a copy, but it should also be read at the meeting. Since this meeting is specifically for planning of the workshops and agenda, it should offer specific suggestions in support of all rights related events (the IRP workshop, for instance) and its inclusion, if too late for this year, in laying the groundwork for next year. Personally, I think that if it is short, concise and to the point people retain the message better. Thanks for coming back to this, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all Sorry for the delayed response to this. What kind of statement were you thinking of Ginger? Something to submit by email, or feed in orally to the Geneva planning meeting? Do people feel that it should be something different to the statement that Anja put together a couple of weeks ago (pasted below). Maybe we want to include specific rights and issues - we started with free expression, and Katitiza emphasised the importance of privacy. We might also want to link it to what's already been proposed for the "security, openness and privacy" session (also pasted below) - does anyone have any specific comments on what's been proposed so far? Just to note again, the IRP coalition is meeting in Geneva on Sunday 13th - all are welcome, in person and virtually. All the best, Lisa Previous statement: The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. The proposed IGF session: Security, Openness and Privacy: The discussion of this cluster of issues will be the focus of the afternoon of the second day. It will be introduced by a compact panel of practitioners to set the stage for the discussion and bring out options for how to deal with the policy and practical choices related to the different clusters of issues. The discussion should cover practical aspects of the coordination needed to secure the network (e.g. to fight spam) and their relationship to issues pertaining to openness (e.g. ensuring the open architecture of the Internet). Issues to be discussed will include: · The respect for privacy as a business advantage; · Identity theft, identity fraud, and information leakage. · Web 2.0; · Social networks; · Cloud computing and privacy, e.g. control of one's own data and data retention; · Cultural and technical perspectives on the regulation of illegal Web contents; · Regulatory models for privacy; · Ensuring the open architecture of the Internet; · Net Neutrality; · Enabling frameworks for freedom; · Ethical dimensions of the Internet. ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sun 23/08/2009 15:01 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC This article from "New Scientist" gives a good overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in laying the groundwork for next year. Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working draft? Best, Ginger http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing role in political dissent. **Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of information and the ability to communicate.** __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4361 (20090823) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 28 08:00:02 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:30:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Fri Aug 28 12:01:45 2009 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:01:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Final Version of our Report: Values, principles and rights in internet governance In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e0908280858h4bda2435k291342d0df778076@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d976d8e0908280858h4bda2435k291342d0df778076@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0908280901g531e00bbq6212003618a56ff0@mail.gmail.com> Hi all > > At http://is.gd/2E8vl you find the final version of the report " Values, > principles and rights in internet governance ", on which Lisa Horner and > myself have been working over the last months (with the input & feedback of > many of you). > > We are quite happy with the result and hope that it will allow us to move > from the debate "what is the rights and principles approach" about to > strategic action advocating better Rights conditions for all net users > around the world. > > Even though this is Lisa and my final version, we want to discuss the piece > and incorporate your feedback as we hope to use the report to find consenus > regarding the definitions etc. among our community. > > As many of you know IRP has teamed up with APC to review the Internet > Rights Charter. The charter can be one of our core instruments to build a > global alliance and benefit from each others (local/regional) efforts. > Please join us @ the dedicated mailing list > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rights, read the current > version http://www.apc.org/en/node/5677 and start editing the wiki (after > registering) @ http://irc.wiki.apc.org > > Both documents will be key themes of our IRP workshop on the 13th of Sept. > just before the EuroDIG http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/166 > > You are all welcome! Please tell us if you are interested in remote > participation. > > looking forward to your input > > Yours, > Max > > > Dear All -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 28 15:17:52 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:17:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re: Final Version of our Report: Values, Message-ID: <11337673.1251487072574.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 28 15:43:22 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:43:22 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Message-ID: <10940892.1251488602906.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 05:55:57 2009 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:55:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Final Version of our Report: Values, principles In-Reply-To: References: <4d976d8e0908280858h4bda2435k291342d0df778076@mail.gmail.com> <4d976d8e0908280901g531e00bbq6212003618a56ff0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4d976d8e0908290255x68a49a88y17c788e1e3a86c63@mail.gmail.com> please excuse - here is the correct link http://is.gd/2FGM8 to the report max On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > I would be very interested to read the document but the link took me > to a Joomla login page?? > Help please > Deirdre (Williams) > > 2009/8/28 Max Senges : > > Hi all > >> > >> At http://is.gd/2E8vl you find the final version of the report " > Values, > >> principles and rights in internet governance ", on which Lisa Horner and > >> myself have been working over the last months (with the input & feedback > of > >> many of you). > >> > >> We are quite happy with the result and hope that it will allow us to > move > >> from the debate "what is the rights and principles approach" about to > >> strategic action advocating better Rights conditions for all net users > >> around the world. > >> > >> Even though this is Lisa and my final version, we want to discuss the > >> piece and incorporate your feedback as we hope to use the report to find > >> consenus regarding the definitions etc. among our community. > >> > >> As many of you know IRP has teamed up with APC to review the Internet > >> Rights Charter. The charter can be one of our core instruments to build > a > >> global alliance and benefit from each others (local/regional) efforts. > >> Please join us @ the dedicated mailing list > >> http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rights, read the current > >> version http://www.apc.org/en/node/5677 and start editing the wiki > (after > >> registering) @ http://irc.wiki.apc.org > >> > >> Both documents will be key themes of our IRP workshop on the 13th of > Sept. > >> just before the EuroDIG http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/166 > >> > >> You are all welcome! Please tell us if you are interested in remote > >> participation. > >> > >> looking forward to your input > >> > >> Yours, > >> Max > >> > >> > > Dear All > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 30 16:37:14 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:37:14 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Security Test Prompts Federal Fraud Alert Message-ID: <17609120.1251664634915.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, Seems that there are some governance issues regarding security problems with a number of online credit card payment systems. In 2002 I amongst others warned ICANN regarding the registration of domain names being forced to credit card required registration of domain names. This problem has been noticed and been a cause of some than existing registrars to be dis-accredited by ICANN after the fact. As such one has to wonder if and how, as well as how well ICANN is able to do proper due diligance of security procedures as required in the US and other nations in respect to PCI. See:http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/08/29/1346235 and https://it.slashdot.org/story/09/08/29/1346235/Security-Test-Prompts-Federal-Fraud-Alert Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 30 16:49:31 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:49:31 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] ESA Sent Takedown Notices For 45 Million Infringements In Fiscal 2009 Message-ID: <32191780.1251665371512.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, It appears that especially in the P2P Internet gaming industry segment that certain government LEA's are taking a stronger role to thwart questionable P2P traffic. As a matter of governance these events and their underlying implications could be huge and broadly expanded. Do we need or even want a "Nanny State"? I think not, but there perhaps is a growing desire that some very specific regulation or statutory law is desired in order to control miscrients. See:http://games.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=09/08/29/1514203 Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Aug 31 16:07:15 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:07:15 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re: [A2k] Thursday, Sept 10: KEI brownbag on Scope of Patentable Subject Matter, Bilski ruling Message-ID: <12623691.1251749235925.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Malini and all, I have been following this closely and will be very interested in the case on appeal at the supreme court. Seems to me that patenting of processes is a very slippery slope and deserves very specific attention as well as review given recent events. It's my belief that cases like this one will have huge implications on Internet governance especially in the use and ownership of open source web based applications. -----Original Message----- >From: Malini Aisola >Sent: Aug 31, 2009 2:43 PM >To: ip-health , a2k discuss list >Subject: [A2k] Thursday, Sept 10: KEI brownbag on Scope of Patentable Subject Matter, Bilski ruling > > >KEI is hosting a brownbag lunch to discuss the scope of patentable >subject matter in reference to the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision >on Bilski's appeal. > >When: Thursday, September 10, 2009Time: 12:00-2:00pm > >Location: >Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) >1621 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 500 >Washington, DC 20009 >Tel +1 202 332 2670 > >The meeting will include presentations by: >Brian Kahin, CCIA >John R. Thomas, Georgetown University Law Center >Dan Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation and Cardozo Law School > >Background: >Many concerns have been raised in the past 15 years about the radical >expansion of patentable subject matter to include all forms of software, >human activities (business methods), and diagnostic information. This >expansion took place with virtually no public input. As one treatise >puts it: > > [B]road notions of patent eligibility appear to be in the best > interest of the patent bar, the PTO, and the Federal Circuit > [CAFC]. Workloads increase and regulatory authority expands when > new industries become subject to the appropriations authorized > by the patent law. Noticeably absent from the private, > administrative and judicial structure is a high regard for the > public interest. [1] > >As a result, virtually all human activity became subject to patenting, >including established civil liberties. As Professor Thomas, Georgetown >Law, has written, “the patent law allows private actors to impose more >significant restraints on speech than has ever been possible through >copyright.” A wide of variety of tax avoidance strategies have been >patented, despite the opposition of the accounting profession. Patents >disadvantage open source software and threaten the development of and >use of open standards. Health care faces patents linking symptoms and >conditions with treatments. > >Last year, the Federal Circuit cut back on the scope of patentable >subject in In re Bilski, by limiting process patents to either physical >transformations or use tied to particular machine. However, the Supreme >Court recently agreed to hear Bilski’s appeal and will soon issue its >first decision on the scope of patentable subject matter in 28 years. 44 >amicus briefs were filed in the first round; final amicus filings are >due October 2. > >This is the first time since 1981 that the Supreme Court will address >the limits of patentable subject matter. This meeting will provide >background, a survey of the response filings and an opportunity for >discussion. > >[1] Roger E. Schechter and John R. Thomas, Intellectual Property, West >Hornbook Series, 2003, p. 314. > >Bring your lunch! We'll provide coffee and soft drinks. > >RSVP: Malini Aisola: malini.aisola at keionline.org > > > >-- >Malini Aisola >Knowledge Ecology International >1621 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20009 >malini.aisola at keionline.org|Tel: +1.202.332.2670|Fax: +1.202.332.2673 > >_______________________________________________ >A2k mailing list >A2k at lists.essential.org >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 cafonso.ca Mon Aug 31 20:11:50 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:11:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] test - please discard In-Reply-To: <32191780.1251665371512.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <32191780.1251665371512.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4A9C66C6.1070403@cafonso.ca> test --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 31 22:10:11 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Show me your blue finger, was; Re: [governance] Amendment to charter vote coming up! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <591900.43768.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I must say, a slow reading through this list is quite impressive. Global representation is diverse and illuminating.  What is fun is to pick random or every so, and just Google. (I chose google because I was looking at generally popular and not topic specific)  There is almost a non-existance of publicly accessible broad data on this group as individuals. Obviously some exceptions, but discarding the top 5% and bottom 10% you are left with lurkers. Or perhaps passive learners or most probably people who join lists or societies because of the purpose and not what they can contribute. With that said,   I most strongly urge everyone to participate in any form on this list. Voting is very very important. A show of community here may help pave the way for more funding, greater recognition and increase the efficacy of the good work here. And it makes participation more popular.   No matter what we show in theory or what great works are produced, the greatest gift we can give to others in governance is leadership in ndividual and imass participation. Any Governance model we suggest or demand is no where near as important as providing leadership in participation. I am not a voting member but I can clean floors, bring refreshments and write my elected officials. Even my small voice/contribution is important,,,,  and so is each one of your votes.   Eric Hugh Dierker --- On Fri, 8/28/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Amendment to charter vote coming up! To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Date: Friday, August 28, 2009, 1:50 AM Thank you Ginger for managing this process forward, and thank you to the team of people who went to the effort to get together names to propose this amendment – and there I think Avri Doria and Jeanette Hoffmann deserve special thanks. It’s obvious there has been a problem on this list and that the co-ordinators hands have been somewhat tied – this Charter amendment will go a long way towards assisting future coordinators to handle difficult situations as they arise.   I want to encourage everyone who receives a ballot in this election to make sure that they respond, whether they want to vote yes or no. A low turnout here is going to leave us with a long term problem that can’t be easily handled. While this amendment doesn’t solve all our problems, it is certainly a good step in the right direction and I believe deserves your support.   So please, make sure you vote.  This vote needs a strong response both in numbers of people responding and in numbers of people responding positively if the changes are to be made. So please don’t forget, make a note now to remind yourself to vote before September 15. Your 90 seconds commitment to vote in the ballot will help make this list and civil society participation in IGF more effective. Ian Peter On 28/08/09 6:48 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: Just a quick reminder--it is important that everyone who is entitled to vote on the upcoming charter amendment proposal do so, no matter how they vote, or even if they choose to abstain on the ballot. The short version: The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me directly. The ballot email from Derrick will contain clear instructions on how to cast your vote. The long version below and attached. Regards, Ginger Dear IGC members, A proposal has been made for amendment to the IGC charter (please see full details below and attached). IGC members should currently be discussing the proposed amendment on the list in case there are any doubts or opinions they would like to express. The Charter states that “The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."  That list is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/%253Cbr%2520/%253E. Since approval of any amendment requires a two-thirds approval, please be sure to vote, whatever your decision may be. This is a good way to keep the IGC on track by exercising your right and obligation to vote. Each person sent a ballot paper will be asked first to affirm whether they are a member of civil society. Only civil society members are entitled to vote. You will be given a choice of "yes", "no" or "abstain" to show your agreement or non-agreement with the proposed amendment. If you prefer not to vote, please use the "abstain" option – that allows us to keep you on the updated membership list as a current member. The ballot will be a secret ballot. The ballot will be open for two weeks (until September 15th). An announcement of the results will be made as soon as possible thereafter. You should expect to receive a ballot paper before Wednesday next week (September 2nd), possibly earlier. If you believe you are entitled to vote and have not received a ballot paper by then please contact me directly. Many thanks to Dr. Derrick Cogburn for once again accepting the task of running this electronic ballot procedure for the IGC. Regards, Ginger Paque for Ginger Paque and Ian Peter IGC Co-coordinators To the IGC Caucus and IGC Caucus Coordinators: According to the IGC Charter, Amendments to the Charter are made according to the following process: This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. Because of the events on the list over the last month or longer, the undersigned have decided to propose Posting Rule amendments to the charter (attached to this email) that will make it less problematic to deal with disruptive behavior on the IG Caucus list in the future.  Part of the problem we are trying to remedy is the fact that the sole responsibility rests with the coordinators without them having any clear guidelines or assistance. In proposing these amendments we looked at RFC 3683 "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt   RFC 3934 and  " Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt, as well as the rules currently in effect for ICANN's GA List for guidance. The proposed amendment contains the following elements: - statement of the purpose of the IGC list - set of guidelines for decorum on the IGC list and any other IGC lists that may be created - description of inappropriate postings for IGC list(s) We are also proposing that the coordinators can create, if they desire to do so, an advisory body to help them in determining when the posting rules have been infringed.  The decision and responsibility of when to take action is, however, still left with the coordinators. If this charter amendment is accepted by a 2/3 vote of the current members, action for suspension of removal can be initiated in the following manner: a. the coordinators decide on their own that action needs to be taken b. the advisory group recommends it to coordinators and they agree that action needs to be taken c. a group of 20 IGC members publicly petitions the coordinators to consider action and the coordinators agree actions should be taken The appeals mechanism remains the same as it is in the current charter: > ? Any decision for suspension can be appealed. > Any decision to remove someone from the list will > call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. Signed by the following members of the IGC as listed on http://www.igcaucus.org/ Carlos A.Afonso Vittorio Bertola Wilie Curie Avri Doria (co-author) Wiliam Drake Bret Fausett Robin Gross Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann (co-author) Wolfgang Kleinwächter Jeremy Malcolm Lee W. McKnight Jacqueline A. Morris Adam Peake Parminder Singh David Souter Christopher Wilkinson ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 31 22:58:14 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <801822.82510.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sorry Yehuda for the delay to an important practical question.   First I was out doing my own cash flow enhancement projects and, Second I was spending my cash to manipulate others into giving me what I want. After all that is all that money does.   Let us start non ambiguously and generally. Two models: Design a program and then find those who would fund it.* Find OPM and design a program to take it.**   I think what you want is to get someone to fund the startup of real nuts and bolts work.  You want it done in a more grassroots method so the beholding part is only to small funding members.  You can spend 110K US to do this or you can roll up your sleeves and start walking door to door, or as ICANN should be doing Address to Address. * Fun old example so as not to step on toes of those.... http://listserv.aaas.org/pipermail/tjnetwork/Week-of-Mon-20050509/000397.html   **Fun international trade list from US; The Electronic Embassy Export-Import Bank of the United States Heifer International InterAction: American Council for Voluntary International Action The International Budget Project International Monetary Fund The International Trade Administration TGCI: International Funding U.S. Chamber of Commerce: International Programs and Services U.S. State Department Wallace Global Fund --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 7:31 PM Thats a nice ambigous answer Eric, Please explain the Entitlement's Cash-Flow to us, Staring from the Source(s) to the Expenditures, in some detail. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance