From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:00:16 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:00:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <917516.70043.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <917516.70043.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E15@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > > This is ridiculous. > > David > ahem. the distinction between chicago pizza and new york pizza is a matter of global concern. 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:04:12 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:04:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > You betcha. A couple slices at least. Review panels doth not > a clean break make. Having read the AoC agreement now, and the original bet, I disagree. I think I win. Clean break. Ding dong, the JPA is dead, and certainly "changed". Thanks to Adam for digging up the original bet. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org At 8:02 AM +0200 4/3/08, William Drake wrote: > I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration > won't change anything, at least not in its first term. > Who'd want to throw read meat to > right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 > election? >____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 30 17:07:39 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:07:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E17@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > > The "Affirmation" is still based on the technically false belief that > other DNS systems do exist and that some may come into larger > use than they have. Did you mean to say: "do NOT exist"? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 30 17:10:54 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:10:54 +1000 Subject: AW: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871958F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On a quick first read - I cant see this satisfying many of the critics, even if it is a good step. For China and others, the NTIA is still there and there is still no level playing field. I cant see ITU being happy as a result. Those who want no governments involved wont be happy with the expanded GAC role. Maybe civil society will be a little happier than most actors - I do see some better language there and perhaps a hint of more change to come. And yes a few western nations will applaud the decision and welcome it. Perhaps one effect will be an upping of the politics of GAC and higher level governmental delegations. Another effect I think is the legitimisation and institutionalisation of ICANN - wheras a year or two ago there may have been moves to replace ICANN with something else, I doubt whether any such moves will gain traction any more. ICANN is now with us for the long term - for better or for worse - and changing ICANN at a fundamental level is probably going to be about as difficult as changing IP protocols. On 1/10/09 3:03 AM, "Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter" wrote: > Dear list, > > I see it as a right next step into the right direction. If you understand the > whole ICANN saga as a process than the "Affirmation" is just another step with > an open outcome but a step forward. > > There are some points which are really innovative: > > a. the review panels will produce an interesting mix of new and innocative > multistakeholder bodies where the members of these bodies will have probably > to write their own rules for inner communication and interaction. This is the > exploration of new territory. This goes beyond the WGIG and MAG experiences. > Certainly the final confirmation for the composition of the review panels is > in the hands of ICANNs CEO abd the GAC Chair. But this is already an > expression of "co-governance", or - with other words - a further > decentralization of power and decision making. Nobody can make single > decisions. This will complicated the process, will lead to delays and certain > forms of fighting inwards and outwards, but it makes the whole process more > transparent, democratic, inclusive and at the end accountable to the broader > public. > > b. I like also the various principles which are included in the text - > starting from the public interest to consumer choice, privacy protection, > competition, stability, security, interoperability etc. If you collect all > these principles and list it on one page you have a "Internet Governance > Declaration" which goes beyond the Tunis document. > > c. I am also pleased that ICANN and NTIA resisted the bipartisan letter which > came from the US Congress in August. In his video Beckstrom argues in an > impressive way that the "Affirmation" meets on the one hand the criteria of > the letter (security, stability, headquartered in the US, US role in the GAC) > etc. but does not follow the congressional recommendation just to continue > with the JPA in its present form for ever. A very smart move. > > I agree also with Bertrand that we need now a discussion how to implement this > document, how to bring the paper language into political realities. It will > depend to a high degree by the individuals (and institutions) who will become > involved in this process. It will not be "rest in peace". It is a challenge > with a lot of work, a lot of discussion and fierce struggles. But this process > will create a dynamic process which will open doors to new territories with > the potential to make Internet Governance more democratic, transparent, > inclusive and accountable. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 17:57 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? > > > > I would say the new arrangement offers a potential for change but is > very difficult to say at this point to what extent such changes will > become reality. > > What I really like about the document is the degree to which the Obama > administration acknowledges > > * the existence of other fora and communities ("cross-community > deliberations", para 7). This is very different from what we used to > hear, namely that we should participate in ICANN instead of criticizing > it from outside or elsewhere > > * the problems with policy development in ICANN. Buzz words such as > "fact-based policy development", responsive consultation procedures, > "thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken" can be > interpreted as an attempt to change to transform ICANN style of policy > development. > > Whether or not such a document can contribute to the badly needed change > is another matter. As regulation experts like to say, the more detailed > the rules, the easier to game them. > > jeanette > > > > Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> Hi Mc tim, >>> >>> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing >>> changed ? >>> >>> B. >> >> >> And something did change. >> >> Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. >> It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair >> for right of participation. >> >> Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the >> change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. >> >> a. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:13:32 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:13:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871958F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <4AC37FE0.3030105@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871958F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E18@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Here is my official response: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/30/4337767.html some irreverent comments on Wolfgang's comments below (it's been a long day) > -----Original Message----- > > a. the review panels will produce an interesting mix of new > and innocative multistakeholder bodies ...be still my heart! > members of these bodies will have probably to write > their own rules for inner communication and interaction. ...the joys > This is the exploration > of new territory. ...personally, I'd rather go hiking in the Sangre de Cristos > This goes beyond the WGIG and MAG > experiences. Certainly the final confirmation for the > composition of the review panels is in the hands of ICANNs > CEO abd the GAC Chair. But this is already an expression of > "co-governance", or - with other words - a further > decentralization of power and decision making. Sounds like a further centralization to me. GAC goes from advisory to choosing people for a special status. > b. I like also the various principles which are included in > the text - starting from the public interest to consumer > choice, privacy protection, competition, stability, security, > interoperability etc. If you collect all these principles and > list it on one page you have a "Internet Governance > Declaration" which goes beyond the Tunis document. guess what's missing: freedom of expression. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Wed Sep 30 17:41:45 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:41:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ICANN=92s_New_US_Contract_And_New_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Top_Level_Domains_-_It=92s_Not_Over?= Message-ID: <4AC3D099.6040604@mdpi.net> Just coming back home, after a few hectic days FYI, an interesting analysis http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/09/29/icanns-new-us-contract-and-new-top-level-domains-its-not-over/ *29 September 2009* ICANN’s New US Contract And New Top Level Domains - It’s Not Over By Monika Ermert for /Intellectual Property Watch/ @ 12:07 pm With a day to go before the joint project agreement between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the United States Department of Commerce (DoC) is set to expire, calls for continuous US oversight role have been reiterated by US politicians and private-sector representatives who reason that this oversight is especially needed in the face of the planned introduction of new internet top-level domains like .shop. ICANN is a “captured regulator,” the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) warned last Wednesday and asked for additional oversight by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as ICANN is “risking cybersecurity, national security and global security.” Yet The Economist magazine ran an opinionated story only a day later asserting that ICANN would be “independent,” under the new contract conceding that the core infrastructure managed by ICANN - the domain-name system (DNS) root zone - will still be controlled by US authorities. So it’s not over, neither the disputes about new top-level domains (TLDs) nor those about further internationalising internet domain name system oversight. ICANN was founded in 1998 to organise private-sector, bottom-up and multi-stakeholder management for the coordination of the DNS and also IP addresses and so-called protocol parameters. It has since been at the centre of a heated debate about the roles of the US, but also global governments, industry and civil society groups in internet governance. Broadsides at ICANN While it had been quiet about the deadline of its joint project agreement (JPA) over the last month, last week ICANN saw some broadsides fired at its TLD expansion plans and its work record in general that would have been suitable for lobbying by US companies and trademark owners seeking to preserve US control. ICANN is “not independent,” “not transparent” nor “accessible,” is only after its own profits and is risking the stability and security of the internet it is tasked to protect, wrote CADNA, that lists companies like Verizon, HP, Dell, but also non-telecommunications, non-information technology members like Goldman Sachs or Wells Fargo, Nike or Hilton Hotels. CADNA called for a “full-scale audit of ICANN.” The group requested that a special federal commission take up to twelve months “to fully audit ICANN and develop recommendations for a revised and updated JPA.” The introduction of new TLDs also came under fire from CADNA who dismissed the roll-out as “poorly conceived.” Steve DelBianco, chairman of the Net Choice Coalition, representing companies like VeriSign and eBay, complained at a 23 September hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy that ICANN had “got sidetracked” in the process of introducing new TLDs. “ICANN should refocus on international labels [domains],” DelBianco said. Countries like China have long asked for internationalised, non-Latin domain names at the highest level. By opening up the TLD expansion to every new Latin-script string and complicating and slowing the process instead ICANN has risked the “splintering of the single root system,” he said, because “China has got tired of label makers and made a mini-ICANN of their own sitting on top of ours.” DelBianco neglected to mention that his parallel proposal to allocate the Chinese versions of .com, .net to the registries managing the English versions like VeriSign likely would not amuse the respective countries. DelBianco, joined by Richard Heath, president of the International Trademark Association argued, that new generic TLDs in English would not bring innovation. Heath said it would instead “decrease competition if we (the trademark owners) have to fund a lot more defensive registration“ and this would also divert resources from innovation and from investment in corporate social sponsorship projects. Congressional Members: New TLDs Require Oversight of ICANN Several members of Congress seemed to agree with the two trademark right representatives. Chairman Hank Johnson (Democrat, Georgia) for example said: “I do not understand [why] they want an unlimited expansion of the name space.“ Johnson acknowledged non-Latin TLDs and initiatives like .nyc and .eco have merit. Given the planned expansion, US oversight over ICANN’s process continued to be necessary to provide stability and security for domain name owners, he said. Republican Congressman Howard Coble (North Carolina) warned that ICANN by proceeding with the expansion of the name space had “not for the first time ignored what one might think is a mandatory instruction.” Governments in ICANN’s own Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) had raised concerns about the new TLD process, and the DoC had asked for economic proof of the necessity of new TLDs, he said. A week earlier a study from Interisle commissioned by ICANN also had recommended first introducing a new security feature to the DNS, the DNS Security Extensions protocol (DNSSEC), before moving on with the introduction of new TLDs, said Coble. The study on “Scaling the Root” in fact concluded ICANN could for stability reasons either introduce new gTLDs, new international (IDN) TLDs and next generation internet (Ipv6) or DNSSEC. It recommended to start with the latter, which will authorise answers to name requests in the DNS and therefore make forgery more difficult. The DoC already has announced that DNSSEC should be introduced by the end of this year. To amalgamate the complicated technology into the DNS system, root operators and the community should be given 12 to 15 months before another addition to the system is started, the study found. ICANN: No Link between JPA and new TLDs ICANN officials rejected the link between the dispute over TLDs and the JPA contract discussions. ICANN’s new CEO, Rod Beckstrom, in a letter dated 22 September wrote to several congressmen who had asked for legislation to make US oversight permanent by legislation, that consultations on the IP issues were still underway. “There is no link to the conclusion of the JPA,,” he said. ICANN Chief Operating Officer Doug Brent at the hearing outlined the process on the future application procedure for new TLDs as an ongoing discussion: a third version of the extensive applicant’s guidebook would come out beginning of October, Brent said. Several protective measures that were proposed by the “Implementation Recommendation Group“ (IRT) were called upon by ICANN’s board chairman. The IRT work was seen by other ICANN stakeholder groups including registries, registrars, and non-commercial domain name holders as yet another round for the IP community of undermining and bypassing the multi-stakeholder process that had worked for months for a consensus. “We will not allow an expansion that will not adequately protect trademark owners,” reiterated Brent, and “it will not be an unbridled expansion.” Delaying the process begun as part of ICANN’s overall mandate to bring competition to the originally monopolistic domain name system according to Beckstrom and Brent would only serve “to perpetuate existing market conditions: concentration within some existing registries, with most short generic strings unavailable and those that trade on the value of the current marketplace, holding portfolios based upon the value of current .com.” Support for ICANN’s process to now finally push through with new generic TLDs and non-English TLDs came from a coalition of domain name registries like Core, registrars like ENOM, declared applicants for new TLDs including the competitors for the .eco TLD of which one is supported by former Vice President Al Gore and a Commissioner of the Canadian Regulatory Authority (CRTC). In their letter to the ICANN Board, the pro-TLD coalition urged ICANN to initiate the new TLD application period without further delay as it would bring more competition and consumer choice and avoid chaos stemming from an alternative addressing scheme that would pop up if ICANN gave in to what they see as fearmongering and “narrow arguments advanced so vociferously by those who seek to preserve their advantages.” End of the JPA, No End to US Control So what will happen with a new agreement in place this week? ICANN officials so far have not responded to requests for detailed information. Beckstrom in his letter to the congressmen dated 21 September wrote: “I am in discussions with the NTIA (DoC National Telecommunications and Information Administration) to establish a long-standing relationship to accommodate principles including the beliefs that ICANN should remain a nonprofit corporation based in the United States, and should retain an ongoing focus on accountability and transparency.“ ICANN should be made a permanent institution, said Beckstrom, adding, “Accordingly, ICANN seeks to have a long-term relationship with the United States government and also seeks to build long-term relationships with other countries and contractual partners as well.“ By the end of last week The Economist came out with leaked information about an “independent“ ICANN, quoting a four-page paper about “affirmations and commitments” that envisaged four oversight panels over ICANN, checking on “competition among generic domains (such as .com and .net), the handling of data on registrants, the security of the network and transparency, accountability and the public interest.” The US would only retain a permanent seat in the latter one, and representatives of “foreign governments” would be included in the oversight panels. The agreement sets up oversight panels that include representatives of foreign governments to “conduct regular reviews of ICANN’s work in four areas.” The potential new oversight model would partly answer long-standing requests for internationalisation, not the least from non-US governments, according to Wolfgang Kleinwächter, an internet governance expert and head of ICANN’s Nominating Committee. The member states of Europe have passed another version of their “Guidelines on International Management of the Domain Name System” demanding further development of the private-sector-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder model for the technical coordination and the day-to-day management of the DNS, continued efforts towards full transparency and accountability and, notably, a “strengthened” GAC “that has increased active membership (in particular from developing countries), greater involvement in ICANN’s policy development processes [..] and effective secretariat support.” GAC members might be the ones who could fill the oversight panels, one can speculate, and this might have come up during talks the NTIA held with the EU Troika (Sweden, Spain and the European Commission) at a meeting on the first of September, one of several meetings NTIA had with governments around the world in the run-up to the JPA deadline. The EU guidelines also state a need to stipulate and support dialogue and cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the internet“ in general, a possible hint of the need for continued discussions at the upcoming UN-led Internet Governance Forum in Egypt. The guidelines do not touch on the new TLD process, yet recommend “the establishment of an arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism base on international law in case of disputes.” The burden to go to a California court to appeal against a California-based ICANN decision has been mentioned at many new TLD events in Europe recently. In the end, a change in the JPA might bring some changes and pacify some concerns over an overly US-centric ICANN. “From what I read, it looks like a smart move,” said Kleinwächter. What it will not bring is “independence” as ICANN will continue to be a government contractor for what is the core “critical resource” - the root zone and internet protocol address allocation management which are delegated via a separation contract, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract. US authorities have always declared that they will hold on to that one. So after the JPA, it’s not over and discussions about the new TLDs can be expected to continue, too, for a long time. /Monika Ermert may be reached at info at ip-watch.ch ./ Categories: Access to Knowledge , English , Features , Information and Communications Technology/Broadcasting , Trademarks/Geographical Indications , US Policy PS : Concerning the pizza bet, my own opinion is that Milton just owes a nice but empty pizza box... because it is just a nice packaging change... :-D -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 30 17:56:03 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:56:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > rules could be tough on they key issues. Someone care to spell out > the argument for how this constitutes a real break in the governance > of names and numbers, rather than a limited, incremental > step? Some years ago the US and EU came up with the face-saving > safe harbor agreement on privacy protection, and US business pretty > much continued on its merry way. How different will this be, > in terms of outcomes? Bill, you are saying that this is not a very good accountability mechanism. Ding! On target. But, as far as the JPA termination goes, the basic issue is that (other than IANA contract) Commerce Dept oversight is finished, over, it's now just one of several GAC members in the basic supervision. Also the Affirmation itself seems to have no legal authority or binding power. And, the NTIA-ers got all the folks who might scream about "giving the internet away to furriners" (VeriSign, CSIS, Google) to agree to it in advance and put up favorable public comments on their web site. Altogether, an impressive fig leaf to cover the end of the JPA. Well done, tactically. But no, let's not be fooled about this solving the accountability problem. And let's pay careful attention to the enhanced role of GAC and the possible abuse of its selection powers. 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Sep 30 17:59:27 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:59:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] The Eurpean Commission and IG Message-ID: <18392552.60720.1254347967908.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f17> Dear all Please find attached the paper issued today by the EC welcoming "US move to more independent (...) Internet governance." Your reaction will be welcomed too ! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EU_Internet Governance_Sept09.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38912 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 Wed Sep 30 18:36:53 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Pizza? Leaning tower of Pizza. In-Reply-To: <4AC37E18.8050406@apc.org> Message-ID: <391822.33858.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The biggest test that this shift creates is: Will unwilling stakeholders participate without immediate gratification?  The biggest point of interest will be: Will China now take a seat at the GAC table?   Clearly this is an Obama administration challenge to the complainers.  Now if those on this list do not participate in a long sustained effort to gain stakeholder/individual rights, they will only have their pontificating selves to blame. --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Willie Currie wrote: From: Willie Currie Subject: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 3:49 PM Ok, so the main shift is the establishment of four review processes which will assess ICANN's performance in four areas in three year cycles. The review teams will be jointly established by the ICANN Chair or CEO and the Chair of the GAC. These reviews will replace the role of the US DoC in reviewing ICANN's performance. One can see an increased role for the GAC in oversight of ICANN here, but it is a 'soft' form of oversight - the 'recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations'. In other words, there is no enforcement mechanism for the recommendations - the ICANN Board is not obliged to implement the recommendations, i.e. the reviews will have the soft force of persuasion and moral or political pressure but not the instruments of 'hard' oversight. This is reinforced in the Affirmation by the clear statement that 'ICANN is a private organization and nothing in this Affirmation should be construed as control by any one entity.' So  the Board  remains the key body of power within ICANN  and the least accountable, as there is no democratic mechanism for the bottom-up ICANN community to dismiss the Board. Nevertheless this is a step forward, with respect to diluting unilateral US oversight of ICANN. It remains to be seen to what extent civil society is represented on any of the review teams and whether the recommendations of the reviews are accepted and implemented by the ICANN Board. The EU has come out in support of the continuation of the IGF 'as it is the only place where all internet related topics can be addressed by a wide range of stakeholders from all over the world, including Parliamentarians.' It will be interesting to see what role the IGF may be able to play as a space where the reviews can be deliberated on in a multi-stakeholder fashion and boost the transparency of the review process and perhaps its soft power. Willie Avri Doria wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Hi Mc tim, >> >> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing changed ? >> >> B. > > > And something did change. > > Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. > It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair for right of participation. > > Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. > > 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 18:38:09 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:38:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment In-Reply-To: <4AC135E5.9090800@wzb.eu> References: <18601336.1254160728627.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <76f819dd0909281152y7e6acccy2a7d4638ce685016@mail.gmail.com> <4AC135E5.9090800@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909301538q28c55966lc0acd152d65a8c7d@mail.gmail.com> The main idea of a 2/3 requirement is to make it NOT EASY to gather that kind of group together, therefore it's not easy to improvidently amend the charter without a lot of member involvement in the issue. The problem appears to be with there being no procedure for aging off inactive members. Or, if the "problem" is that members simply don't want to change the charter and realize that not voting is one way to accomplish that, THAT is a legitimate and (within its scope) effective electoral position to take, one that can't be dismissed as invalid any more than a "yes" vote can be dismissed as invalid. As far as signal to noise goes, I don't know what you're referring to precisely, unless its pizza discussions but I personally don't mind a bit of humor now and then. The flurry of messages on pizza is understandable given the reality that appetites like food, sleep (well, and sex) are nearly universal appetites that everyone can speak to, or most everyone, except computer experts (I'm not one) who I hear do not ever sleep, though I haven't confirmed that yet. In contrast, when it comes to computer technicalities, that becomes white noise for many, because they don't have the training to understand it. I certainly can't and won't defend every post made or that could be made, but part of the solution to the problem of "noise" is to realize that tolerance at any reasonable level involves putting up with considerable "noise" especially the grating kind one doesn't agree with or prefers didn't populate the list, because one doesn't need any "tolerance" at all to tolerate something one both understands and approves. Meanwhile, what we all don't care for, just like bad music, is grating to the ears, and becomes "more noise than signal." Not many of us, and certainly not I, are important enough to have our communications summarized and shortened for us so that we can enjoy high signal to noise ratio, so we've got to do a lot of sorting ourselves. Having sat myself through many a 3 day long meeting with wall to wall lawyers, one can't hit "delete" on someone who's talking in person, nor leave the room for long. It's a lot better here in the email world since a scan of an email plus a delete key stroke, if truly merited, is about ten to a hundred times more efficient with time. In this light, while not claiming that no poster ever abuses rights, the bulk of the "problem" with high noise to signal claims is the lack of tolerance by email receivers. At least those on highspeed internet and not a metered dialup have no real cause to shift the few seconds it takes to scan and delete onto the drafters of posts, for whom it would take many minutes to even hours to streamline, edit and post a "high signal" post. Back to the 2/3, if the charter architects didn't foresee some problem, we're still stuck with the charter provision designed specifically to make things difficult, even if it makes them slightly more difficult than perhaps was anticipated. Because it's meant to be difficult, performing an end-around for reasons of expedience, or reducing the provision's impact for reasons of expedience, is unjustified. Expedience will ultimately justify gutting or highly limiting any given charter position, ones we like and ones we don't like. Whose job is it to uphold the charter, no one's? That's the crux. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/28/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> Personally, I think that if the election were redone and if as is >> likely the measure passes easily in all respects that would be a >> victory for best practices and not a waste in any good governance >> sense of that word. Instead, it bespeaks a high respect for >> procedural integrity, even if it means the effort of a new election. > > Hi Paul, you seem to think that it would be easy to mobilize the same > number of voters once again. I can assure you, it is everything but > easy. A lot of people who once cared about this caucus have stopped to > pay attention, not least because of its worsening signal to noise ratio. > > The 2/3 threshold was designed with the aim to make changes of the > charter difficult. What the charter architects didn't and couldn't > foresee is that a changing of the charter would become nearly impossible > because a growing number of caucus members abandons the group simply by > ignoring it. Unless we manage to improve the quality of discussion on > this list, it will soon be impossible to establish majorities for anything. > jeanette >> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> >> On 9/28/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >>> Paul and all, >>> >>> Thank you Paul for this execellent and substative legal analysis. Well >>> done >>> and I concur! Now are you willing to officially a protest accordingly? >>> If >>> so I would join you as seemingly Ginger and Ian have indicated is >>> required, >>> but by what authority I know not. Please advise as soon as possible. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Paul Lehto >>>> Sent: Sep 28, 2009 12:50 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter >>>> amendment >>>> vote >>>> >>>> I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in >>>> the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, >>>> but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of >>>> facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at >>>> least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an >>>> explanation at least: >>>> >>>> 1. Elections are PURE procedure. >>>> >>>> 2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure >>>> renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least >>>> renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election >>>> irregularities." >>>> >>>> 3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body >>>> is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, >>>> substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a >>>> quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present >>>> for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights >>>> therein. >>>> >>>> 4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such >>>> persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed >>>> to complete the voting process. >>>> >>>> 5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of >>>> a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, >>>> or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of >>>> showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may >>>> rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for >>>> the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result >>>> intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal >>>> opportunity to vote. >>>> >>>> 6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the >>>> sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a >>>> vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, >>>> even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action >>>> against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional >>>> rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the >>>> most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they >>>> were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote >>>> suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in >>>> achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away >>> >from the polls. >>>> 7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I >>>> cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the >>>> opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election >>>> principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The >>>> parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the >>>> election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, >>>> and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various >>>> reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate >>>> more than others, in most circumstances. >>>> >>>> For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding >>>> the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the >>>> persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause >>>> they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without >>>> going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested >>>> parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules >>>> above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be >>>> grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds >>>> for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule >>>> requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 >>>> requirement FAIL. >>>> >>>> Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause >>>> charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can >>>> be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a >>>> claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an >>>> end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the >>>> 2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way >>>> to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get >>>> around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the >>>> case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were >>>> achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole >>>> purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in >>>> a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement >>>> for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended >>>> unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn >>>> out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. >>>> >>>> A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of >>>> ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense >>>> enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a >>>> proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't >>>> entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to >>>> those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against >>>> the amendment is simply not to vote at all. >>>> >>>> Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the >>>> regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order >>>> to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first >>>> place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or >>>> work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, >>>> which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the >>>> amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved >>>> and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus >>>> and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose >>>> of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the >>>> requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is >>>> a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself >>>> could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would >>>> require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. >>>> >>>> In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or >>>> the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like >>>> voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in >>>> combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under >>>> normal election law. >>>> >>>> That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law >>>> or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure >>>> might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal >>>> principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not >>>> as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of >>>> replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it >>>> was fairly constituted and understood the law. >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of >>>> political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally >>>> applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was >>>> no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes >>>> tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT >>>> for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, >>>> particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted >>>> so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of >>>> proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines >>>> the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy >>>> taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core >>>> purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every >>>> election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it >>>> would be a much closer case. >>>> >>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >>>> >>>> PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment >>>> process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a >>>> firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had >>>> voted. >>>> On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> Dear IGC >>>>> >>>>> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >>>>> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >>>>> amending the IGC charter. >>>>> >>>>> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >>>>> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >>>>> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >>>>> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >>>>> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >>>>> >>>>> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >>>>> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >>>>> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >>>>> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >>>>> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >>>>> >>>>> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >>>>> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >>>>> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >>>>> >>>>> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >>>>> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >>>>> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >>>>> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >>>>> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >>>>> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe >>>>> is >>>>> the responsibility of the coordinators). >>>>> >>>>> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >>>>> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >>>>> >>>>> >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >>>>> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >>>>> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >>>>> >>>>> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but >>>>> rather >>>>> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >>>>> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >>>>> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >>>>> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >>>>> of directors. >>>>> >>>>> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >>>>> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >>>>> >>>>> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >>>>> law in California (where APC is registered). >>>>> >>>>> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >>>>> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >>>>> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member >>>>> council). >>>>> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >>>>> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >>>>> >>>>> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, >>>>> and >>>>> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >>>>> and who are located in just about all timezones. >>>>> >>>>> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >>>>> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >>>>> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >>>>> be submitted electronically. >>>>> >>>>> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >>>>> don't use voting very often. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>>> 906-204-4026 >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 30 18:47:22 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:47:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC membership In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E08@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AC1C18C.4040009@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E08@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909301547l2a49798dn53a8aac4dc1d454a@mail.gmail.com> It seems to me that, UNLESS there's a charter provision in the immediate area that governs "no longer being a member", then we likely do have a situation of reasonable leeway (unlike the 2/3 issue, IMO). Assuming no specific provisions on aging off members, a reasonable procedure is to send a communication reasonably likely to be received to all those who we are not sure are active members, requiring an affirmative response to stay a member (opt in). This should get rid of all those people who truly are inactive and therefore raising the bar on the 2/3 requirement a bit unfairly high. After the above effort, perhaps involving two communications, then the membership list will be solidified and lowered, probably at least by one if not by many. From that plateau, proper elections can proceed with a somewhat lower 2/3 requirement in terms of the gross number of ballots needed. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/29/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I'm feelin' that collective responsibility right now. I AM the IGC.... > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > ________________________________ > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:13 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGC membership > > The membership issue of this group certainly needs to be sorted out. > > I have said this before, but I can see only one real way out. To have a > clear membership which is renewed bi-yearly. It doesnt matter if there are > only 30-40 such members. They need to feel a collective (sorry for using > that word, Milton :) ) responsibility for the caucus. At present it is too > much of 'some one else will do it' and coordinators are left with an > impossible job. > > Organizational issues should be dealt by this members list, with free and > regular references to the larger group, which consists of those who are > interested in the caucus, in the matters of getting information, > contributing, and deliberating, but not willing to take much > responsibility, which is of course very fine. For most purposes one will > never feel the difference while participating in the regular larger > group.... it will only be more or less an exceptional thing to take matters > to the members group > > Otherwise we will keep ending up in some absurd situations of the kind > Milton refers to. > > I appeal to coordinators to take this issue up. > > parminder > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the procedure > used. > The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership portion > who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this attracts 200 people > who call themselves "members" at point A and after two years 35% of them > lose interest and stop participating, then no charter amendments would ever > be possible. If the vote were a close one it would be different, of course. > As it is, all that happened was that the vote extension allowed the will of > an overwhelming majority to be executed. > ________________________________ > From: Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. > Williams > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > Dear list, > after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been > following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite > my silence. > > I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding > to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time > and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look > forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do. > > I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have > aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this > period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in > favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, > I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to > adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also > because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made > within the regular voting period or during the extension period. > > I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the > voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right? > > Best, > > Magaly Pazello > > > > 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams > > > Danny and all, > > There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not > necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have > occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that > suspicion. > > So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't > ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Danny Younger > >>Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter >> > >>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> >>Ian, >> >>Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering >> the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural >> irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my >> ultimate decision. >> >>One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the >> amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to >> pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the >> pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded >> to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to >> obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. >> >>Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions >> constitute an improper gaming of the process. >> >>Best regards, >>Danny Younger >> >>[...] > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 30 19:32:31 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:32:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: References: <76f819dd0909291312g3111687cl660fcc3f4f371787@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909301632s5dc81bp768ad206c171d113@mail.gmail.com> OK, I'd look at it initially with the idea of making elections fair and clear, as long as you understand that I'd add a clause for a "belts and suspenders" redundancy approach by saying that there's no leeway or discretion within the scope of the charter provision, except perhaps as approved by a truly independent third party of some sort. On 9/29/09, Ian Peter wrote: > > Paul, I would like to think there is a way your offer could be taken up, and > as I suggested earlier I do not believe the charters problems can be solved > by dealing with one little bit at a time. There are a number of sections > which need amending and clarification and it would be a great service to > this group if someone would take this on. I would certainly support you if > you were willing to head up such a working group - but for me, with only > about a month of my term as co coordinator to run, (I am counting the days) > I would not be prepared to take a central role of any sort. BY all means > write to me off list if you would like to take this on and I would happily > work with you towards getting a working group established. > > In the meantime - we have a month to go to the IGF meeeting, and I do hope > that on this list we can start to put attention towards what we are doing as > a group there and some of the issues we need to address. > > > > > > > On 30/09/09 6:12 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: > >> I'd be happy to draft a charter amendment if one were desired, but >> without the stipulation that the principles of reason and construction >> of language apply with force, literally anything I would draft, no >> matter how clear, would be a waste of time and utterly ineffective in >> binding the freedom of administrators (the point of such election >> provisions). >> >> Also, in this specific case, no further rules are needed in the >> charter to resolve the question, because the 2/3 rule implies that the >> 2/3 must exist in a normal election day time period and not over a >> week, month, or year. >> >> If the above case is not sufficiently clear in its prohibition of >> extensions for purposes or effect of meeting the 2/3 rule, then no >> amount of drafting, no matter how precise, will be sufficient to tie >> the hands of any person of even average intelligence who is committed >> to getting around the words and told he's got the "leeway" to do so. >> And I consider all here quite above average in intelligence. >> >> So, on another subject, I'd be happy to draft an amendment, but on >> this one it's hopeless. >> On 9/29/09, McTim wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable >>> law >>>> that negates the actions >>>> taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within the >>>> limits of the charter. >>>> >>>> >>> +1 >>> >>> If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot. >>> >>> Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need >>> to >>> be further specified. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 30 21:41:57 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:41:57 +0700 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4AC408E5.3020808@gmx.net> Thanks, Karl, for your analysis. Norbert Klein = Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 09/30/2009 10:01 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Let's see. On the one hand we have >> >> 1. IANA contract >> 2. VeriSign contract >> 3. California law >> 4. Entrenched org culture >> 5. Entrenched commercial interests >> 6. Whatever back channel political deals and assurances were needed in >> DC, etc (the administration will probably take heat for it anyway) >> 7. etc >> >> On the other hand, we have >> >> 1. NTIA's reviews replaced by non-binding panels. > > I see serious problems with this "Affirmation". > > First of all, NTIA cites as authority only the most vague and general > of statutory authorizations. If one accepts those as adequate it > means, for example, that NTIA has the general authority to enter into > agreements that require US corporations to include a committee of > foreign governments in their highest decision making processes. > > That might be a thought that gives comfort to some outside the US but > it scares the beejeebers out of me as a whole new and previously > unseen kind of expansion of US governmental power into the affairs of > private activities. > > There are several other aspects in which NTIA's citation of authority > is not adequate for the impositions it places on ICANN. > > Second, the agreement, as you mention, leaves open many other issues, > such as who prepares the root zone, is NTIA still in the approval loop > (I see no reason to believe that it is not). > > Third, the "Affirmation" seems to be designed to buttress the > intellectual property industry's drumbeat for an every more revealing > and privacy-busting "whois" > > Fourth, it leaves ICANN still in an unclear position with regard to > anti-trust laws. > > Fifth, given that the ICANN-Verisign contracts and legal agreements > are based on certain assumptions about what NTIA delegated to ICANN, > there is now a cloud on those contracts and agreements in that they > now may be based on a vanished foundation. > > The "Affirmation" is still based on the technically false belief that > other DNS systems do exist and that some may come into larger use than > they have. > > And where are the root operators in all of this - they, at a flick of > their text editors - can obviate this entire ICANN/NTIA structure. > > This "Affirmation" is a collection of euphemisms wrapped in pretty > ribbons. > > By-the-way, did anyone else notice the list of "reactions" - all from > people who must have been given an advance copy and none of whom are > ICANN critics. > > --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 -- 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: The Highlight of the Past Week: the Constitution – Sunday, 27.9.2009 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-124 (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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 22:22:41 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:22:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Online survey about impact of the IGF until Oct 1st Message-ID: *There is just a few hours left to participate in the online survey about the impact of the IGF.* ** *More than 200 people have already taken part in the survey* *Your views are very important!* *You can access it using this simplified url*: http://bit.ly/IGF-Sharm Best regards! Marilia Maciel -------------- 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 Tue Sep 1 06:48:55 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:18:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 07:30 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Lisa, Thanks! > > I like your suggestion that the IRP be given the opportunity to work > with all main sessions, and offer to work with all others--perhaps by > posting guidelines or suggestions to them by email or a link on the > IGF page. > > I would appreciate it if you can propose a short statement on the list > as soon as possible for comment and discussion. > > Here is the April IGC statement: > > 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. > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > 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 > > > > 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 anja at cis-india.org Tue Sep 1 06:57:43 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:27:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper Message-ID: <1251802663.9245.63.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear all, Please find below the final list of signatories of the comment on the Draft Programme Paper, as communicated to the IGF Secretariat last week. Thanks to all for their support. 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: Association for Progressive Communications Bytesforall, Pakistan Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Tracy F Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network Carlos Afonso Dina Hovakmian Rui Correia Lisa Horner Deirdre Williams Jaco Aizenman Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Baudouin Schombe Stefano Trumpy 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 Tue Sep 1 08:35:00 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Final list and funding Message-ID: <363446.27882.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I work in a fairly "executive/consultant" capacity most of the time. I read a lot of "papers". I find myself either being asked or asking some form of this question many times a day: "What does Socrates (any name) think of this?"  Because I am overpaid I know the answer. Because I value the opinions of others I know the person. I want to know not just what the "paper" says but what Milton or Joe or Yahuda says about the paper or subject.  Sometimes a yes or no is good enough but usually I want a one liner or reference. I want to know if they have a lot to say or a little. I want a named footnote.   I reckon my suggestion would be to have, along with a name a 20 word summary by that person -- of course only if they choose to do so. Perhaps just an address to their blog. Or a reference to another paper.   I believe that by building tools into position papers such as this you both create more of a hub bub and you begin to establish an aura of respectability and a "go to" source. I copy Yahuda here because it is in doing such reference work that others will be more forthcoming in desiring to fund projects. Good governance is a combination of education and guidance. Good marketing and rallying is most fundamentally sound when created through information and education. Good governance recognizes the fundamental requirement that people are the source of authority and their opinions are the source for knowledge. --- On Tue, 9/1/09, Anja Kovacs wrote: From: Anja Kovacs Subject: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper To: "governance" Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 10:57 AM Dear all, Please find below the final list of signatories of the comment on the Draft Programme Paper, as communicated to the IGF Secretariat last week. Thanks to all for their support. 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: Association for Progressive Communications Bytesforall, Pakistan Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Tracy F Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network Carlos Afonso Dina Hovakmian Rui Correia Lisa Horner Deirdre Williams Jaco Aizenman Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Baudouin Schombe Stefano Trumpy 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 1 14:44:47 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:44:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Bill would give president power to disconnect private networks Message-ID: <5161916.1251830687463.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, See: http://fcw.com/articles/2009/08/28/cybersecurity-bill-presidential-power.aspx?s=hls_010909 Seems to me this is a direct matter of governance. I would suggest to all of you that you weigh in on this possible/likely legislation irregardless of your national origin as other countries are likely to follow this lead if this bill becomes law. 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Sep 2 12:53:55 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:53:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as guidance for session organizers? As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to incorporate into amendments. Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4389 (20090902) __________ 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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Sep 2 13:03:46 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:03:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: <1251802663.9245.63.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1251802663.9245.63.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: Sorry, seems I overlooked this, but would still like to express myself strongly in favor! Best regards Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 01. September 2009 12:58 An: governance Betreff: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper Dear all, Please find below the final list of signatories of the comment on the Draft Programme Paper, as communicated to the IGF Secretariat last week. Thanks to all for their support. 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: Association for Progressive Communications Bytesforall, Pakistan Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Tracy F Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network Carlos Afonso Dina Hovakmian Rui Correia Lisa Horner Deirdre Williams Jaco Aizenman Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Baudouin Schombe Stefano Trumpy 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 2 14:35:21 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:35:21 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Message-ID: <13598712.1251916521448.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Lisa and all, I support this suggestion as to method of approach. One question I have is: What exemptions or exceptions to the basic principals would be exceptable if any, and would it not be advisable to at least be considering that some exceptions will end up being the most likely end product that would gain wider support? -----Original Message----- >From: Lisa Horner >Sent: Sep 2, 2009 11:53 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > >Hi all > >I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > >Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as guidance for session organizers? > >As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to incorporate into amendments. > >Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > >All the best, >Lisa > >-------------------- > >DRAFT STATEMENT > >The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF. This is problematic as: >• Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >• The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >• The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > >The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > >-------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >To: governance >Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > >Dear all, > >Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with >only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > >Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft >a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to >include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for >putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >rather than including it in a written statement already now. > >I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of >the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >like France as much as it would, say, China. > >Cheers, >Anja > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4389 (20090902) __________ > >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 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 2 23:08:02 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Voting Rights was RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <637960.88908.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Lisa,   This is a wonderful statement.  This concept is critically important.   Seldom is it appropriate to hold a group accountable for an obvious oversight.  But it is always correct to hold them accountable for something so obvious that it must have been left out with intention.   All of the passive language here means nothing at all without giving users of the Internet a voice in their government.  The IGC even suggesting they support human rights without demanding the individual a seat at the decision making table is unbelievable for well educated persons. Human Rights are not Granted by folks who consider themselves benevolent philosopher kings like Milton or Ian. They are only protected by an electorate composed of those governed.   Any group pretending to support human rights that is not constantly yelling at ICANN for stakeholder representation is playing games and seeking funding rather than rights.       --- On Wed, 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: From: Lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:53 PM Hi all I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as guidance for session organizers? As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to incorporate into amendments. Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF.  This is problematic as: •    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. •    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. •    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders.    The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4389 (20090902) __________ 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Sep 3 06:09:09 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:09:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Dear Lisa and all, Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express in time my support to the latter. Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, so the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. Best, Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a > joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights > are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt > gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration > and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human > rights in the information society, but human rights and associated > principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. > This is problematic as: > • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom > of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current > internet governance processes and practice. > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human > rights framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains > guidelines on how to balances different rights against each other > to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it the > required scheme as well as a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on > the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression > and privacy balance freedom of expression with concerns for > security on the internet. TBesides stating obligations on States > and governments, the framework also allows to derive considers both > rights and responsibilities of other different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for > human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during > the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of > positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet > for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer > assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do > this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing > access to relevant guidelines and experts. -------------- 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 Thu Sep 3 06:36:53 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez Pereda) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:36:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: I fully support Meryem's comments Katitza, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Dear Lisa and all, > > Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral > presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the > written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't > express in time my support to the latter. > > Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR > violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement > at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding > character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other > binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this > 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, > so the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to > the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely > been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective > rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would > only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. > > My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope > this is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. > > Best, > Meryem > > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > > Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society >> Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a >> joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights >> are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt >> gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration >> and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human >> rights in the information society, but human rights and associated >> principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. >> This is problematic as: >> • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom >> of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by curre >> nt internet governance processes and practice. >> • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advanc >> ing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledg >> e and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these op >> portunities. >> • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human righ >> ts framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standard >> s that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidel >> ines on how to balances different rights against each other to pre >> serve individual and public interest. This makes it the required >> scheme as well as a useful tool for addressing internet governance >> issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the interne >> t in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and priva >> cy balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the >> internet. TBesides stating obligations on States and governments >> , the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and re >> sponsibilities of other different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for >> human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during >> the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they >> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This >> should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and >> national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of >> positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet >> for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer >> assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do >> this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing >> access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Sep 3 08:07:42 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:07:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> There are two things I thought I'd share....... First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. We can also share this with the members of the MAG. Regarding the IGC statement again, if anyone of you wanted to read the statement but can't make it, I am preparation to participate and can read the statement from IGC. I will also be intervening on the issues of Internet Rights and IG 4 Development. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda wrote: > I fully support Meryem's comments > > Katitza, > Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Dear Lisa and all, > Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral > presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the written > statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express in time my > support to the latter. > Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR > violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement at this > step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding character of HR > standards (as translated into protocols and other binding conventions). > Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this 'balance' wordings: HR standards > _already_ reflect such a balance, so the point is to comply with these > standards. The same applies to the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR > standards have precisely been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define > these respective rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap > which would only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR > standards. > My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this is > readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. > Best, > Meryem > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : > > -------------------- > DRAFT STATEMENT > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a joint statement by > IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights are given > adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required > attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed > the importance centrality of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom of > expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current internet > governance processes and practice. > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human rights > framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standards that has > practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how to > balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it the required scheme as well as a useful tool > for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > expression and privacy balance freedom of expression with concerns for > security on the internet.  TBesides stating obligations on States and > governments, the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and > responsibilities of other different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for human > rights standards issues to be included in addressed during the planning and > implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention > they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Sep 3 08:35:53 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:35:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> Fouad, a couple of anwers below. Meryem Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > There are two things I thought I'd share....... > > First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number > from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the > statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is not here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next preparatory meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the TA (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. > Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not > particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from > IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and cultural rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, is to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the ifnromation society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" document exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be necessary. Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF table. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 08:52:33 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:52:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Hi Meryem, My intention earlier was neither to start a new argument nor go into any other direction of things. Please be clear on this. As for the IGC interventions on the issues of Internet Rights, members from CS will be able to confirm that I was actively participating and deliberating on these issues at the open consultations and MAG meetings. Just in case this isn't on IGC record, we have intervened on the Internet Rights issue at the May meetings in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings and thus have brought it on the table of the IGF. The problem is, that I personally felt, vagueness to the term Internet Rights and what it refers to for the other anti-internet rights groups to twist and confuse the pursuit. Yes the documents on Human Rights are available and we continuously quote them, but the funnelling down with a focus on Internet is not happening and then we find countries like China and other private sector lobbyists throwing out the topic of the window. The APC Internet Rights document is there but again, that is attributed to a single organization because it says APC Internet Rights Charter and within a multilateral scope of issues and interventions, either many more have to team up with APC or there should be a more strengthened backing to it. I think my comment was taken in a different understanding, indeed the intention in not a battle, the intention is simply to refer back to the particular clauses like a footnote or something. Once again, I will be at my end raising the issue of Internet Rights and IG4D in meeting and the IGF. Secondly, I have plans to get in touch with CS organizations and groups from the various countries of the developing world and pursue a more focused pressure group to convince the IGF to take on Internet Rights and IG4D as main session themes. Just in case, this discussion may be paused here to complete the IGC IR statement and we can discuss this face to face with IGC/CS participants during the EuroDIG session on IR or the IGF Preparatory. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Fouad, > > a couple of anwers below. Meryem > > Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > >> There are two things I thought I'd share....... >> >> First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number >> from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the >> statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. > > You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a > general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not > explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is not > here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next preparatory > meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that > anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. > If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our > common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the > Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the TA > (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). > Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. > >> Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not >> particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from >> IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. > > As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two international > covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and cultural > rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet > rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as > the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this > IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, is > to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the ifnromation > society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" document > exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be necessary. > Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF > table. > > Best, > Meryem ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- 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 Sep 3 09:47:27 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <273942.19887.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is quite disturbing. The argument does not go to the heart of the matter but rather who is in control of the heart of the matter.  Someone does not understand that the very words we use define our charactar.  Someone does not quite get that legal battles over words are how we accept or reject concepts that govern.  Avoiding a legal battle over words means that someone is avoiding an issue.   But what is most disturbing is that someone is basically threatening someone, to either get in step with those in power or be locked out of participation. --- On Thu, 9/3/09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: From: Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:35 PM Fouad, a couple of anwers below. Meryem Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > There are two things I thought I'd share....... > > First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number > from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the > statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is not here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next preparatory meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the TA (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. > Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not > particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from > IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and cultural rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, is to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the ifnromation society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" document exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be necessary. Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF table. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- 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 Sep 3 10:18:50 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <314772.82195.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dilution. Has already occured by total rejection, of demanding representation in this new "Country".   Here is what should be demanded. Ignoring this is wrong   Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. --- On Thu, 9/3/09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: From: Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lisa Horner" Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:09 AM Dear Lisa and all, Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express in time my support to the latter. Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, so the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. Best, Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human rights framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how to balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  This makes it the required scheme as well as a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet.  TBesides stating obligations on States and governments, the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and responsibilities of other different stakeholders.    The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Sep 3 10:19:41 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:19:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi again Fouad, I think we don't have any disagreement here. I understand and share your concern about the vagueness of "internet rights", thus my reluctance to use this wording, and my insistance on sticking to the fundamentals. Basically, we want to bring on the table the human rights issue, as a cross-cutting issue, and we want to see it taken into account in the overall IGF program, so as to be able to discuss this issue in the internet context. This was the objective of the written IGC statement prepared by Anja and submitted to the IGF secretariat, and remains the objective of this oral statement prepared by Lisa and intended for presentation in Geneva later this month. Unfortunately I wont be able to go to Geneva this time, and as a matter of fact I had to decline an invitation to participate to one of the EuroDIG workshops. But there are many of them intending to raise different rights issues (program at: http://www.eurodig.org/), not to mention other specific meetings during this Geneva week, among them the DC IRP meeting, your own workshop, etc.). These are opportunities to deal with the substantive issue, but we want it officially recognized and implemented at IGF too. Best, Meryem Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:52, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > Hi Meryem, > > My intention earlier was neither to start a new argument nor go into > any other direction of things. Please be clear on this. As for the IGC > interventions on the issues of Internet Rights, members from CS will > be able to confirm that I was actively participating and deliberating > on these issues at the open consultations and MAG meetings. > > Just in case this isn't on IGC record, we have intervened on the > Internet Rights issue at the May meetings in Geneva as well as during > the MAG meetings and thus have brought it on the table of the IGF. The > problem is, that I personally felt, vagueness to the term Internet > Rights and what it refers to for the other anti-internet rights groups > to twist and confuse the pursuit. Yes the documents on Human Rights > are available and we continuously quote them, but the funnelling down > with a focus on Internet is not happening and then we find countries > like China and other private sector lobbyists throwing out the topic > of the window. The APC Internet Rights document is there but again, > that is attributed to a single organization because it says APC > Internet Rights Charter and within a multilateral scope of issues and > interventions, either many more have to team up with APC or there > should be a more strengthened backing to it. > > I think my comment was taken in a different understanding, indeed the > intention in not a battle, the intention is simply to refer back to > the particular clauses like a footnote or something. > > Once again, I will be at my end raising the issue of Internet Rights > and IG4D in meeting and the IGF. Secondly, I have plans to get in > touch with CS organizations and groups from the various countries of > the developing world and pursue a more focused pressure group to > convince the IGF to take on Internet Rights and IG4D as main session > themes. > > Just in case, this discussion may be paused here to complete the IGC > IR statement and we can discuss this face to face with IGC/CS > participants during the EuroDIG session on IR or the IGF Preparatory. > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Meryem > Marzouki wrote: >> Fouad, >> >> a couple of anwers below. Meryem >> >> Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : >> >>> There are two things I thought I'd share....... >>> >>> First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number >>> from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the >>> statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. >> >> You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, >> rather a >> general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not >> explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The >> goal is not >> here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next >> preparatory >> meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these >> texts that >> anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. >> If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl >> ("our >> common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 >> of the >> Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and >> in the TA >> (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). >> Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. >> >>> Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not >>> particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically >>> from >>> IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. >> >> As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two >> international >> covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and >> cultural >> rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet >> rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters >> such as >> the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point >> of this >> IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the >> IRP one, is >> to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the >> ifnromation >> society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" >> document >> exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be >> necessary. >> Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on >> the IGF >> table. >> >> Best, >> Meryem ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 3 10:27:34 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:57:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A9FD256.2030003@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 Thu Sep 3 11:12:16 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:12:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70909030812ke050305qbdf791d7711d36db@mail.gmail.com> Thank you Meryem for understanding. Our comments from the developing world are sometimes misunderstood and that is not the case here. Please accept my complete support for this statement. Thank you all. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi again Fouad, > > I think we don't have any disagreement here. I understand and share your > concern about the vagueness of "internet rights", thus my reluctance to use > this wording, and my insistance on sticking to the fundamentals. Basically, > we want to bring on the table the human rights issue, as a cross-cutting > issue, and we want to see it taken into account in the overall IGF program, > so as to be able to discuss this issue in the internet context. This was the > objective of the written IGC statement prepared by Anja and submitted to the > IGF secretariat, and remains the objective of this oral statement prepared > by Lisa and intended for presentation in Geneva later this month. > Unfortunately I wont be able to go to Geneva this time, and as a matter of > fact I had to decline an invitation to participate to one of the EuroDIG > workshops. But there are many of them intending to raise different rights > issues (program at: http://www.eurodig.org/), not to mention other specific > meetings during this Geneva week, among them the DC IRP meeting, your own > workshop, etc.). These are opportunities to deal with the substantive issue, > but we want it officially recognized and implemented at IGF too. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:52, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> My intention earlier was neither to start a new argument nor go into >> any other direction of things. Please be clear on this. As for the IGC >> interventions on the issues of Internet Rights, members from CS will >> be able to confirm that I was actively participating and deliberating >> on these issues at the open consultations and MAG meetings. >> >> Just in case this isn't on IGC record, we have intervened on the >> Internet Rights issue at the May meetings in Geneva as well as during >> the MAG meetings and thus have brought it on the table of the IGF. The >> problem is, that I personally felt, vagueness to the term Internet >> Rights and what it refers to for the other anti-internet rights groups >> to twist and confuse the pursuit. Yes the documents on Human Rights >> are available and we continuously quote them, but the funnelling down >> with a focus on Internet is not happening and then we find countries >> like China and other private sector lobbyists throwing out the topic >> of the window. The APC Internet Rights document is there but again, >> that is attributed to a single organization because it says APC >> Internet Rights Charter and within a multilateral scope of issues and >> interventions, either many more have to team up with APC or there >> should be a more strengthened backing to it. >> >> I think my comment was taken in a different understanding, indeed the >> intention in not a battle, the intention is simply to refer back to >> the particular clauses like a footnote or something. >> >> Once again, I will be at my end raising the issue of Internet Rights >> and IG4D in meeting and the IGF. Secondly, I have plans to get in >> touch with CS organizations and groups from the various countries of >> the developing world and pursue a more focused pressure group to >> convince the IGF to take on Internet Rights and IG4D as main session >> themes. >> >> Just in case, this discussion may be paused here to complete the IGC >> IR statement and we can discuss this face to face with IGC/CS >> participants during the EuroDIG session on IR or the IGF Preparatory. >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Meryem Marzouki >> wrote: >>> >>> Fouad, >>> >>> a couple of anwers below. Meryem >>> >>> Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : >>> >>>> There are two things I thought I'd share....... >>>> >>>> First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number >>>> from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the >>>> statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. >>> >>> You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a >>> general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not >>> explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is >>> not >>> here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next >>> preparatory >>> meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that >>> anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. >>> If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our >>> common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the >>> Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the >>> TA >>> (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). >>> Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. >>> >>>> Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not >>>> particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from >>>> IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. >>> >>> As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two >>> international >>> covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and >>> cultural >>> rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet >>> rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as >>> the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this >>> IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, >>> is >>> to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the >>> ifnromation >>> society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" >>> document >>> exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be >>> necessary. >>> Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF >>> table. >>> >>> Best, >>> Meryem ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 anja at cis-india.org Thu Sep 3 12:09:25 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:39:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> Thanks, Lisa, for drafting the statement and Meryem for your additional comments, which I fully agree with. I did not intend for us to start listing HR violations, but rather to remind government of their HR commitments in a more general fashion, and of the fact that to uphold those commitments, they need to take concrete action. Meryem's emphasis on the legally binding implications of the HR framework makes the same point much more clearly and directly, and it would be great if this issue could be highlighted in the statement. Perhaps we could therefore delete the words "In addition to its legally binding implications" in the para that starts with these words in Meryem's version, and add something along the following lines at the very end of that same para: "We would like to remind all governments who have signed such HR instruments that these do not simply constitute guidelines but have legally binding implications. Governments responsibility to actively uphold their citizens' human rights continues in the Internet era as before". I also suggest that we insert the word "repeats" in the first sentence of the statement, so that it reads: "The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request[s] that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt". My two cents, Anja On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 12:09 +0200, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Dear Lisa and all, > > > Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral > presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the > written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express > in time my support to the latter. > > > Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR > violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement > at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding > character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other > binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this > 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, so > the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to the > 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely been > defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective rights > and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would only lead > us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. > > > My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this > is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. > > > Best, > Meryem > > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > > Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : > > -------------------- > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > > Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a > > joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. > > > > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights > > are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration > > and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human > > rights in the information society, but human rights and associated > > principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. > > This is problematic as: > > • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom > > of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current > > internet governance processes and practice. > > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > > these opportunities. > > • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human rights > > framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > > on how to balances different rights against each other to preserve > > individual and public interest. This makes it the required scheme > > as well as a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in > > compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy > > balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the > > internet. TBesides stating obligations on States and governments, > > the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and > > responsibilities of other different stakeholders. > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for > > human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during the > > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are > > given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > > national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of > > positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet > > for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer > > assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do > > this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing > > access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > > > > 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 13:56:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:26:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Email ballot on charter amendment has been sent out Message-ID: <4AA0034F.7010401@gmail.com> The email inviting eligible IGC members to vote in the ballot considering the proposal for an amendment to the IGC Charter has now gone out, with a return address from Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn. If you are eligible to vote in this ballot and have not received the email with instructions and a link to the online voting site, please let me know as soon as possible. If you have received the email, please do vote. It is important for the IGC as an organization, and the IG community in general that you stay engaged with this process. Thanks to all of you for your time in voting, and in particular to those who were active in initiating and implementing the process. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 3 14:30:32 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How to of Representation Rights Message-ID: <410816.58817.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Way too many phone calls and private email -------------- 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 muguet at mdpi.net Thu Sep 3 18:15:41 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:15:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Registration is now open Workshop @ITU / Ateler 18 sept UIT Message-ID: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> Dear friends/ Chers Amis Englsh / Français *The registration is now open. Les inscriptions sont maintenant ouvertes. * Attached below, the workshop poster *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. * *Atelier dans le cadre d'une expertise * * * * *La situation actuelle concernant le Système des Noms de Domaine (DNS) suscite un intérêt de plus en plus grand, alors que l'expiration, en Septembre prochain, de l' * accord de projet conjoint (JPA)* ,entre l'ICANN et le Département américain du Commerce, approche. ** ** ** ** *Au lieu de s'engager dans d'âpres débats sur la façon de co-gérer un quasi-monopole, cet atelier informel est organisé afin d'étudier s'il existe des solutions techniques pour le développement des futurs réseaux d'information. Existe-t-il une solution effective pour ouvrir à la compétition les services de nommage ? * ** ** ** ** * Cet atelier informel est organisé dans le contexte de la mission d'expertise qui a été récemment contractée par l'UIT auprès du Dr. FrancisMuguet , après sa présentation, en Mai dernier, au Forum du SMSI : Ouverture à la concurrence de l'infrastructure de l'espace de nommage .*** ** ** ** *Cette mission d'expert est dans la ligne des décisions du dernier Conseil de l'UIT Groupe de travail sur le SMSI, où l'UIT a été priée d'étudier l'évolution de l'internet du futur. * ** ** ** ** * L'atelier informel d'expertise est hébergé au siège de l'UIT, le vendredi 18 Septembre, le plaçant après le Dialogue européen sur la gouvernance de l'Internet (Lundi 14 - Mardi 15. Septembre) et la réunion de planification de l'IGF (Mercredi 16 - Jeudi 17 Septembre) à Genève L'atelier, organisé par Francis Muguet , va inclure dans la matinée, des exposés et une table ronde, et dans l'après-midi, des discussions ouvertes.*** ** ** ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18sep09posterA4.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 83517 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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Fri Sep 4 04:26:50 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:26:50 +0600 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> Dear Colleagues, Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram. For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? best wishes Shahzad -------------- 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 Fri Sep 4 04:44:12 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:44:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> Message-ID: "whois " is your friend: On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine...  www.iamhalal.com > > It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... > This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't > figure out that who is behind it? > C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>whois -h whois.rrpproxy.net iamhalal. ; This data is provided by TransIP BV ; for information purposes, and to assist persons obtaining information ; about or related to domain name registration records. ; TransIP BV does not guarantee its accuracy. ; By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data ; only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances, you will ; use this data to ; 1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass ; unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via E-mail ; (spam); or ; 2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply ; to this WHOIS server. ; These terms may be changed without prior notice. ; By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy. DOMAIN: IAMHALAL.COM RSP: TransIP BV URL: http://www.transip.nl owner-contact: P-RGA434 owner-fname: R owner-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha owner-street: De waarden 135 owner-city: zupthen owner-zip: 7206 GC owner-country: NL owner-phone: +31 657938393 owner-email: reza_sardeha at hotmail.com admin-contact: P-RLA441 admin-fname: R admin-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha admin-street: De waarden 135 admin-city: zupthen admin-zip: 7206 GC admin-country: NL admin-phone: +31 657938393 admin-email: contact at imhalal.com tech-contact: P-RSA465 tech-fname: R tech-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha tech-street: De waarden 135 tech-city: zupthen tech-zip: 7206 GC tech-country: NL tech-phone: +31 657938393 tech-email: contact at imhalal.com billing-contact: P-RLA441 billing-fname: R billing-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha billing-street: De waarden 135 billing-city: zupthen billing-zip: 7206 GC billing-country: NL billing-phone: +31 657938393 billing-email: contact at imhalal.com nameserver: ns1.lunarbreeze.com nameserver: ns2.lunarbreeze.com ; TransIP BV ; Real-time domeinregistratie en -beheer vanaf 4.99 Euro! ; http://www.transip.nl/products/domain/ > > > They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new > interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine > wants to develop their business "using" religion :) so? let them. -- 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Sep 4 06:02:04 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:02:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> Message-ID: <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement. Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : > Dear Colleagues, > > Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... > www.iamhalal.com > > It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions > also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet > Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? > > They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a > new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this > search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) > > It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches > being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they > decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... > which they think is really really haram. > > For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 > (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at > Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See > for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) > > Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if > someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? > > best wishes > Shahzad > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 a.beccalli at unesco.org Fri Sep 4 09:08:28 2009 From: a.beccalli at unesco.org (Beccalli, Andrea) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:08:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Registration is now open Workshop @ITU / Ateler 18 sept UIT In-Reply-To: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> References: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660AB6E76@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Hello Francis, I haven't had yet the approval to extend my mission to geneva till the 18, at what time will the meeting start? Where will it be? Best, Andrea ________________________________ From: Dr. Francis MUGUET [mailto:muguet at mdpi.net] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:16 AM To: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance; Governance Subject: [governance] Registration is now open Workshop @ITU / Ateler 18 sept UIT Dear friends/ Chers Amis Englsh / Français The registration is now open. Les inscriptions sont maintenant ouvertes. Attached below, the workshop poster 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. Atelier dans le cadre d'une expertise La situation actuelle concernant le Système des Noms de Domaine (DNS) suscite un intérêt de plus en plus grand, alors que l'expiration, en Septembre prochain, de l' accord de projet conjoint (JPA) ,entre l'ICANN et le Département américain du Commerce, approche. Au lieu de s'engager dans d'âpres débats sur la façon de co-gérer un quasi-monopole, cet atelier informel est organisé afin d'étudier s'il existe des solutions techniques pour le développement des futurs réseaux d'information. Existe-t-il une solution effective pour ouvrir à la compétition les services de nommage ? Cet atelier informel est organisé dans le contexte de la mission d'expertise qui a été récemment contractée par l'UIT auprès du Dr. FrancisMuguet , après sa présentation, en Mai dernier, au Forum du SMSI : Ouverture à la concurrence de l'infrastructure de l'espace de nommage . Cette mission d'expert est dans la ligne des décisions du dernier Conseil de l'UIT Groupe de travail sur le SMSI, où l'UIT a été priée d'étudier l'évolution de l'internet du futur. L'atelier informel d'expertise est hébergé au siège de l'UIT, le vendredi 18 Septembre, le plaçant après le Dialogue européen sur la gouvernance de l'Internet (Lundi 14 - Mardi 15. Septembre) et la réunion de planification de l'IGF (Mercredi 16 - Jeudi 17 Septembre) à Genève L'atelier, organisé par Francis Muguet , va inclure dans la matinée, des exposés et une table ronde, et dans l'après-midi, des discussions ouvertes. -------------- 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 Sep 4 14:08:04 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:38:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search > engine (the domain name is still free BTW).But after all, simply a > targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, > whatever the "ethic" reference? > But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities > of really well targeted advertisement. > > Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : > > Dear Colleagues, > > Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... > www.iamhalal.com > > It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... > This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't > figure out that who is behind it? > > > They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new > interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine > wants to develop their business "using" religion :) > > It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being > Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these > levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is > really really haram. > > For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how > "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being > haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not > attaching the screen shots :) > > Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone > know that how will it work...and who is behind it? > > best wishes > Shahzad > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Fri Sep 4 14:18:44 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:18:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement. Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : Dear Colleagues, Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram. For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? best wishes Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Fri Sep 4 15:21:39 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:51:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello Milton One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... >The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Wouldn't that be a paradox to apply the "right to freedom of assoication" to a community if it were to deny within its community the same right to freedom of association to its members? Or deny the freedom of expression if any of the community's members were to say anything good or positive about other communities or beliefs? I am not jumping into a conclusion that the halal search engine would have such an attitude. But if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and then influences (if not prohibit) its members the freeedom of association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, would you still consider the right to the freedom-restricting entity's right to freedom valid? Thankyou Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to > establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic > community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of > association and freedom of expression. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > Hello, > > It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start > Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create > closed Internet communities. > > Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain > or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other > community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to > be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from > being a part of other communities. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search >> engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a >> targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, >> whatever the "ethic" reference? >> But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities >> of really well targeted advertisement. >> >> Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... >> www.iamhalal.com >> >> It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions >> also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. >> Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? >> >> >> They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new >> interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine >> wants to develop their business "using" religion :) >> >> It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being >> Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these >> levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is >> really really haram. >> >> For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how >> "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being >> haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not >> attaching the screen shots :) >> >> Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if >> someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? >> >> best wishes >> Shahzad >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 babatope at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 15:22:13 2009 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I concur with Milton on this. Perhaps its not funny but the idea of closed communities is not new nor fresh having been around in different shades for quite a while On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to > establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic > community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of > association and freedom of expression. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > Hello, > > It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start > Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create > closed Internet communities. > > Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain > or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other > community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to > be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from > being a part of other communities. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search >> engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a >> targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, >> whatever the "ethic" reference? >> But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities >> of really well targeted advertisement. >> >> Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... >> www.iamhalal.com >> >> It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions >> also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. >> Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? >> >> >> They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new >> interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine >> wants to develop their business "using" religion :) >> >> It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being >> Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these >> levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is >> really really haram. >> >> For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how >> "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being >> haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not >> attaching the screen shots :) >> >> Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if >> someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? >> >> best wishes >> Shahzad >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 15:28:16 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Sent again with a correction and apologies: Last paragraph: if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and then influences (if not prohibit) its members that they ought not to have the freeedom of association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, would you still consider the right to freedom of the freedom-restricting entity valid? On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Milton > > One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet > Governance is not a good idea... > > >The right to establish customised and special applications for your own > idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to > freedom of association and freedom of expression. > > Wouldn't that be a paradox to apply the "right to freedom of assoication" > to a community if it were to deny within its community the same right to > freedom of association to its members? Or deny the freedom of expression if > any of the community's members were to say anything good or positive about > other communities or beliefs? > > I am not jumping into a conclusion that the halal search engine would have > such an attitude. But if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space > by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, > and then influences (if not prohibit) its members the freeedom of > association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, > would you still consider the right to the freedom-restricting entity's right > to freedom valid? > > Thankyou > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to >> establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic >> community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of >> association and freedom of expression. >> >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> Hello, >> >> It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start >> Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create >> closed Internet communities. >> >> Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain >> or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other >> community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to >> be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from >> being a part of other communities. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search >>> engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a >>> targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, >>> whatever the "ethic" reference? >>> But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities >>> of really well targeted advertisement. >>> >>> Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... >>> www.iamhalal.com >>> >>> It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions >>> also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. >>> Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? >>> >>> >>> They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new >>> interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine >>> wants to develop their business "using" religion :) >>> >>> It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being >>> Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these >>> levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is >>> really really haram. >>> >>> For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW >>> how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being >>> haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not >>> attaching the screen shots :) >>> >>> Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if >>> someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? >>> >>> best wishes >>> Shahzad >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 robin at ipjustice.org Fri Sep 4 18:38:23 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:38:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society Message-ID: NCUC Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 3 September 2009 Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society The organization that represents Non-Commercial Internet Users in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) issued an open letter to the Board this week, expressing concern about the possible failure of ICANN's attempt to balance the representation of commercial and noncommercial interests. California (United States) – ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), a group of 152 non-commercial organizations and individuals from 52 countries who represent the noncommercial interests of Internet users in ICANN policy development, recently appealed to ICANN's Board of Directors and CEO to meet with them in Seoul to resolve serious problems with its current plans to alter the representation of noncommercial interests in its policy making process. Specifically, NCUC’s letter expressed concern over ICANN’s adoption of a flawed charter for noncommercial users that disregarded the vast majority of public comments and concerns expressed by noncommercial Internet users. In late July 2009 ICANN’s Board decided to approve the NCSG charter drafted by ICANN staff, rather than the charter drafted by civil society in a 7-month long consensus process that included a wide variety of noncommercial interests and was submitted to ICANN’s Board by the NCUC. ICANN’s staff did not provide its board with the competing charter submitted by NCUC in order to properly inform the board’s decision. The difference between staff’s charter and civil society’s charter is stark. Staff’s charter ties council representation and resources to arbitrary and more easily manipulated constituencies, while the NCUC charter calls for stakeholder group wide elections of its noncommercial representatives and other leaders. NCUC’s charter model encourages consensus building among constituencies, while staff’s charter model encourages divisiveness and favoritism among noncommercial interests. “ICANN’s decision has resulted in significant damage to ICANN’s credibility within global civil society and has fueled further distrust towards ICANN’s decision making process,” said NCUC Chair Robin Gross. “Its treatment of noncommercial users in this instance has significantly called into question ICANN’s legitimacy to govern and its ability to protect the global public interest,” said Gross, Executive Director of digital rights group IP Justice, a NCUC member since 2004. The board’s adoption of the stakeholder group charter is part of ICANN’s ongoing effort to re-organize its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which currently consists of 5 commercial constituencies and 1 non-commercial constituency, the NCUC. ICANN’s GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations that relate to Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLDs) or those domain names that end in .com, .net, .edu, and .org. The GNSO plays an important role on Internet-related policy issues since its recommendations affect all who own or use GTLDs, including the way domain names can be registered, used, transferred, and any applicable fees and associated policies regarding the domain names. The process of changing the GNSO’s structure from 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups is expected to be complete by the end of October 2009. In its letter the NCUC states that “there is a misunderstanding over non-commercial representation and participation in ICANN” and NCUC calls on ICANN to acknowledge that there has been significant growth among noncommercial participants at ICANN recently. NCUC’s membership has grown by 240% since 2008 and now includes 75 noncommercial organizations and 77 individuals. An independent study by the London School of Economics verified that NCUC has the highest number of different people on the GNSO Council of any ICANN constituency and that NCUC has the most geographical diversity among its membership with members now from 52 different countries. “NCUC represents an extremely broad range of noncommercial Internet users, including educational and academic institutions, human rights organizations, libraries, consumer groups, religious organizations, bloggers, open source software developers, development-oriented groups, arts organizations, and other noncommercial interests,” explained Dr. Milton Mueller, an Internet governance expert. Dr. Mueller, now a professor at Syracuse University School of Information Studies and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, co- founded the constituency in 2002. "Nonprofits and public interest advocacy groups have an irreplaceable role to play in a self-regulatory scheme dominated by business interests. Someone has to look out for the public interest. If we handicap noncommercial voices and divide them into competing silos they simply won't be able to participate effectively. ICANN's legitimacy and the quality of its decisions will suffer," explained Dr. Mueller. In order to dispel pervasive myths about civil society’s role in ICANN, the NCUC published a “Top 10 Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN,” a document that explains why much of what ICANN staff and other constituencies have claimed about noncommercial participation is untrue. For additional information on NCUC and noncommercial participation in ICANN, please contact NCUC’s Chair Robin Gross or visit NCUC’s website at http://ncdnhc.org. Contact: Robin Gross, NCUC Chair Milton Mueller, NCUC Co-Founder Tel.: +1-415-553-6261 Tel: +1-315-443-5616 Email: robin – at - ipjustice.org Email: Mueller – at – syr.edu More Info: Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): http://ncdnhc.org NCUC’s Letter to ICANN Board of Directors and CEO: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of NCUC’s “Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN”: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil About the Noncommercial Users Constituency: The NCUC is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN policy-making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that favor non-commercial communication and activity on the Internet. The NCUC is open to non-commercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas. NCUC maintains a public website at http://ncdnhc.org. ### 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 5 09:41:17 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 06:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong Message-ID: <353664.55771.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is terribly wrong.  The exceptions and caveats to this simple concept must be included every time it is said or written. Any time my State, Federal or ICANN or UN funds are involved this is in violation of law. 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. Segragation into groups is fine as long as it does not violate this precept and righteous goal. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Any man woman or child is fully entitled to bear hatred, bias and prejudice. They are not entitled as Milton suggests to act upon it.   NCUC, Syracuse and Delft are not "free" and are certainly not free to discriminate and cloister and exclude. http://www.tudelft.nl/ Netherlands funded http://ncdnhc.org/ ICANN funded and foundation funded http://www.syr.edu/about/ Is US federally funded and New York State funded --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "'Sivasubramanian Muthusamy'" Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 6:18 PM There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression.   Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org   From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement.  Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : Dear Colleagues,   Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine...  www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it?   They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :)   It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram.   For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :)   Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it?   best wishes Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sat Sep 5 09:54:36 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 06:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Discrimination and Segregation was; Re: [governance] Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <438700.74265.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please read this letter and see the driving force behind it. MIlton Mueller. Milton is paid and draws funds from many Government sources.  He uses those funds to further his agenda in groups like this one. In an earlier post here MIlton made clear that his opinion was that people have as an inalienable right, the right to discriminate and segregate.  There are still those at Delft who were alive and saw this beginnings of superiority claims in the 1930s and 1940s. It began with small "dignitaries" spouting off "rights to purity" "rights to nationalism" "rights to discrimanate" then it crept into denial of rights to those opposed. The only clear and correct way to keep this from happening again is to cut off funding for such eltists  before they gain a foothold in our seats of power.   (it is difficult to see such small encroachments against human rights, and it is even more difficult to stick one's neck out to prevent the growth. Please do not sit idle.  I will take the heat for this, will you??) --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Robin Gross wrote: From: Robin Gross Subject: [governance] Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 10:38 PM NCUC Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 3 September 2009 Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society   The organization that represents Non-Commercial Internet Users in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) issued an open letter to the Board this week, expressing concern about the possible failure of ICANN's attempt to balance the representation of commercial and noncommercial interests.   California (United States)  –  ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), a group of 152 non-commercial organizations and individuals from 52 countries who represent the noncommercial interests of Internet users in ICANN policy development, recently appealed to ICANN's Board of Directors and CEO to meet with them in Seoul to resolve serious problems with its current plans to alter the representation of noncommercial interests in its policy making process.   Specifically, NCUC’s letter expressed concern over ICANN’s adoption of a flawed charter for noncommercial users that disregarded the vast majority of public comments and concerns expressed by noncommercial Internet users.  In late July 2009 ICANN’s Board decided to approve the NCSG charter drafted by ICANN staff, rather than the charter drafted by civil society in a 7-month long consensus process that included a wide variety of noncommercial interests and was submitted to ICANN’s Board by the NCUC.    ICANN’s staff did not provide its board with the competing charter submitted by NCUC in order to properly inform the board’s decision.  The difference between staff’s charter and civil society’s charter is stark.  Staff’s charter ties council representation and resources to arbitrary and more easily manipulated constituencies, while the NCUC charter calls for stakeholder group wide elections of its noncommercial representatives and other leaders.  NCUC’s charter model encourages consensus building among constituencies, while staff’s charter model encourages divisiveness and favoritism among noncommercial interests.   “ICANN’s decision has resulted in significant damage to ICANN’s credibility within global civil society and has fueled further distrust towards ICANN’s decision making process,” said NCUC Chair Robin Gross.  “Its treatment of noncommercial users in this instance has significantly called into question ICANN’s legitimacy to govern and its ability to protect the global public interest,” said Gross, Executive Director of digital rights group IP Justice, a NCUC member since 2004.   The board’s adoption of the stakeholder group charter is part of ICANN’s ongoing effort to re-organize its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which currently consists of 5 commercial constituencies and 1 non-commercial constituency, the NCUC.  ICANN’s GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations that relate to Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLDs) or those domain names that end in .com, .net, .edu, and .org.  The GNSO plays an important role on Internet-related policy issues since its recommendations affect all who own or use GTLDs, including the way domain names can be registered, used, transferred, and any applicable fees and associated policies regarding the domain names.  The process of changing the GNSO’s structure from 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups is expected to be complete by the end of October 2009.   In its letter the NCUC states that “there is a misunderstanding over non-commercial representation and participation in ICANN” and NCUC calls on ICANN to acknowledge that there has been significant growth among noncommercial participants at ICANN recently.  NCUC’s membership has grown by 240% since 2008 and now includes 75 noncommercial organizations and 77 individuals.  An independent study by the London School of Economics verified that NCUC has the highest number of different people on the GNSO Council of any ICANN constituency and that NCUC has the most geographical diversity among its membership with members now from 52 different countries.    “NCUC represents an extremely broad range of noncommercial Internet users, including educational and academic institutions, human rights organizations, libraries, consumer groups, religious organizations, bloggers, open source software developers, development-oriented groups, arts organizations, and other noncommercial interests,” explained Dr. Milton Mueller, an Internet governance expert.  Dr. Mueller, now a professor at Syracuse University School of Information Studies and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, co-founded the constituency in 2002.   "Nonprofits and public interest advocacy groups have an irreplaceable role to play in a self-regulatory scheme dominated by business interests.  Someone has to look out for the public interest.  If we handicap noncommercial voices and divide them into competing silos they simply won't be able to participate effectively.  ICANN's legitimacy and the quality of its decisions will suffer," explained Dr. Mueller.   In order to dispel pervasive myths about civil society’s role in ICANN, the NCUC published a “Top 10 Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN,” a document that explains why much of what ICANN staff and other constituencies have claimed about noncommercial participation is untrue.   For additional information on NCUC and noncommercial participation in ICANN, please contact NCUC’s Chair Robin Gross or visit NCUC’s website at http://ncdnhc.org.   Contact: Robin Gross, NCUC Chair                 Milton Mueller, NCUC Co-Founder  Tel.: +1-415-553-6261                        Tel: +1-315-443-5616 Email: robin – at - ipjustice.org           Email: Mueller – at – syr.edu   More Info:   Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): http://ncdnhc.org   NCUC’s Letter to ICANN Board of Directors and CEO: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of   NCUC’s “Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN”: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil   About the Noncommercial Users Constituency:   The NCUC is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).  With real voting power in ICANN policy-making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that favor non-commercial communication and activity on the Internet.  The NCUC is open to non-commercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas.  NCUC maintains a public website at http://ncdnhc.org.     ### 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 -----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 Sat Sep 5 10:11:15 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 07:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Representation through the TLD, Practical Approach Message-ID: <13991.93097.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It is time to begin the long process of giving internet users the right to a voice in the governance of the Internet. Not representation tied to a particular group but as individuals.   It is time to make the operators of the TLDs responsive and require them to create representation of the users. They have the databases.  They have the monopolies. They have the technologies.  They operate under permission and not right. It is time to make their continued operating licenses contingent upon a solid and reliable demonstration of providing users representation in decisions on how the Internet is governed. We give them license to monopolize and control communications, we must make them have a corresponding duty to the user.   The methods can run from easy to complex. The questions of only representing domain name holders versus users will work their way out. ccTLDs will need to be addressed, but it is anticipated they are run by contractors, at the whim of the duly elected officials.   ICANN can make this operational and required. They can and should set as a condition to continued operation or new license a structure put in place for effective voting and representation of individuals, using and owning domain names. Anyone who elects to register as an individual.   The IGF or other designated group by the UN should be chartered to asure appropriate voting and election standards and monitoring. All systems and experts are in place. This very list is showing a demonstrable willingness to work hard and openly to garauntee appropriate voting and verifiable results. This very list can sit in judgment of the guidelines established, it is filled with experts and ideologues from throughout our wonderful global community. -------------- 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 Sep 5 10:51:48 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 07:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Globalization and Representation Message-ID: <598517.60948.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have seen the good and the bad of mass integration of ideas and commonality in our beautiful world community. I have witnessed the wastefields of Bhopal and Chernobyl. I have witnessed the caring hands of a Canadian doctor nurture and cure the ailments of a Tsunami victim. I have seen antibiotics administered to save,in rural Africa, that were donated by megaPharmas from Europe.   Our multinational huge MegaCorps have the capacity to ravage cultures and to destroy whole ways of life. But they also have the capacity to care and to raise up out of poverty and ignorance. Our bombarding governments sometimes act by dropping bombs, but indeed more often drop humanitarian aid.   Within this great burgeoning world of telecommunications we have seen an explosion of information.  We have seen an explosion of huge conglomerates controlling and manipulating our very ability to say "I love you". They have expanded and built huge webs of corporate control and effects on existing governance adaptations.   They have to date not made significant impacts in the areas of preservation of Natural Resources and preservation of Culture.  They have decidedly refused to accept that with this new technology there is a corresponding duty to provide for the individual in any manner.  They have had ample opportunity. From Bill Gates to TelMex, from Sony to the EU. They have chosen not to incorporate the simple and universal concept that those most effected should have a say in the use of what has become an essential tool of life.   We must now begin the task to "hold their feet to the fire". We must insist that if the US Government is too weak to demand through their Department of Commerce the enactment of controls that establish representation of users, they must cede the control over to a body with the dignity and strength to enforce basic human rights. If the US President is too beholding to the corporations and money brokers to create a system that ensures universal sufferage amoung users of communication systems then he must have the courage to give the power to someone who will.   I promise you as a student of history; that if we do not give the governed a voice in their governance bad things will happen. We will walk backward in dignity. We will lose control over our ability to effectively express ourselves. We will see a rise in discrimination and a wresting of control over our lives never witnessed. We have freed ourselves from the tyranny of physical slavery and masters over servants. We must not sit by and allow a new and "braver" master to control our thoughts and communication with each other in a slavery far worse than physical bondage. -------------- 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 Sep 5 11:59:37 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN Message-ID: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am the embattled chair of the only individual forum left at the ICANN GNSO. I am embattled because the GNSO refuses to provide us with voting mechanisms.   I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they have been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO.   Ladies and Gentlemen we are in trouble from censorship. Miltons support of segregated groups with representation are posted. My alternative individual representation models are censored. -------------- 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 Sep 5 12:04:45 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:04:45 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> No, there is no contradiction or paradox here at all. There is an important distinction between public, state action and private, voluntary action. In the latter context, you have the freedom to deny access to things you don't want - otherwise all other kinds of freedom are meaningless. E.g., I am a free expression absolutist in a public, political context, but that doesn't mean you can come into my living room, set up a microphone and force me and my family to listen to your views. Get it? Of course it depends on what you mean by "deny" or "prohibit" within its community" below. If the operators of this Halal web site run around physically attacking people who don't use it, then this is a criminal issue not a free expression issue. But if a "Halal" web site cannot compel anyone to use it, then I see nothing wrong with them offering a search site for people who want to conform to whatever restrictions "Halal" means or however this group interprets it. What are YOU suggesting - that we pass a law to force this search engine to list different sites and invade its offices and confiscarte its servers to make them offer access to more sites? All communities, all editorial policies, all websites, by definition, include some things and not others. --MM ________________________________ Wouldn't that be a paradox to apply the "right to freedom of assoication" to a community if it were to deny within its community the same right to freedom of association to its members? Or deny the freedom of expression if any of the community's members were to say anything good or positive about other communities or beliefs? I am not jumping into a conclusion that the halal search engine would have such an attitude. But if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and then influences (if not prohibit) its members the freeedom of association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, would you still consider the right to the freedom-restricting entity's right to freedom valid? Thankyou Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement. Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : Dear Colleagues, Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram. For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? best wishes Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 5 12:06:55 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:06:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems incoherent to me. On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? -------------- 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 Sat Sep 5 13:33:41 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:33:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN In-Reply-To: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050909051033s3138ef64x2d58676790f02831@mail.gmail.com> Brief Brief: Not knowledgeable about all the details, but in support of your urging that *Representation Issues* are proper (re. standing to broach) and timely (ripe) and serious (meritorous). *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.). ICT ARPANet forward. On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I am the embattled chair of the only individual forum left at the ICANN > GNSO. I am embattled because the GNSO refuses to provide us with voting > mechanisms. > > I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they have > been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO. > > Ladies and Gentlemen we are in trouble from censorship. Miltons support of > segregated groups with representation are posted. My alternative individual > representation models are > censored.____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sat Sep 5 13:44:51 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:44:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN In-Reply-To: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5 Sep 2009, at 11:59, Eric Dierker wrote: > I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they > have been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO. I can't speak for ICANN, believe me I can't speak for ICANN. i think i would be flayed alive if i tried. that s not say that i can't speak of ICANN. but that is for another time and place. but i haven't censored anything anywhere at anytime of what you have said or of your desires for voting mechanisms. i am not party to whether anyone anywhere at anytime give you access to voting mechanisms. however, please do not take this as my trying to censor you for accusing me of this thing. while i may respond to accusations i consider false just so it can't be said i had acquiesced to them though i do not alway feel so compelled and my not having responded (yet) to any false accusation should not be taken as acquiescence. some responses just take longer to get written. i reserve my right to respond to false accusations any time i feel like it and am ready to do so. i will of course attempt to do it within the rules of whatever environment i am using to do so. i am not going to take any action to stop your accusations or the accusations of any of my other good friends. becasue i haven't censored any thing anywhere at anytime of what you have said or wanted to say. however, when it is my job to administer or enforce the judgement of another to censure, i will do my duty e.g. if this list ever decides it has the cause, as one who is a caretaker of the listserv, i will do as i am instructed. but i am not in the position of having that decision to make. 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 Sat Sep 5 17:59:11 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:59:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re: Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN Message-ID: <30371710.1252187951576.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Avri, Eric and all, Well seems to me that perhaps Kent Krispin is perhaps needing to fix the GA list again. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 5, 2009 12:44 PM >To: Governance/IGC List >Subject: [governance] Re: Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN > > >On 5 Sep 2009, at 11:59, Eric Dierker wrote: > >> I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they >> have been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO. > > >I can't speak for ICANN, believe me I can't speak for ICANN. i think >i would be flayed alive if i tried. >that s not say that i can't speak of ICANN. but that is for another >time and place. > >but >i haven't censored anything anywhere at anytime of what you have said >or of your desires for voting mechanisms. >i am not party to whether anyone anywhere at anytime give you access >to voting mechanisms. > >however, >please do not take this as my trying to censor you for accusing me of >this thing. > >while i may respond to accusations i consider false just so it can't >be said i had acquiesced to them >though i do not alway feel so compelled and my not having responded >(yet) to any false accusation >should not be taken as acquiescence. some responses just take longer >to get written. >i reserve my right to respond to false accusations any time i feel >like it and am ready to do so. >i will of course attempt to do it within the rules of whatever >environment i am using to do so. > >i am not going to take any action to stop your accusations or the >accusations of any of my other good friends. > >becasue > >i haven't censored any thing anywhere at anytime of what you have said >or wanted to say. > >however, >when it is my job to administer or enforce the judgement of another to >censure, i will do my duty >e.g. if this list ever decides it has the cause, as one who is a >caretaker of the listserv, >i will do as i am instructed. > >but i am not in the position of having that decision to make. > >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 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 Sat Sep 5 18:11:10 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:11:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN Message-ID: <8524594.1252188670301.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 Sep 5 18:16:54 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:16:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong Message-ID: <1628897.1252189014887.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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Sep 5 19:33:57 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:33:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AA2F565.5090704@cafonso.ca> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems incoherent to me. > On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? > > One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... > > If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Sep 6 01:51:47 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:51:47 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <4AA2F565.5090704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for certain types of advertising services though the same company. But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a part in the results reported? We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net > are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite > grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all > closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems >> incoherent to me. >> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself >> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >> >> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet >> Governance is not a good idea... >> >> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sun Sep 6 03:28:29 2009 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 08:28:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20090906072830.093D725B027B@tounes-27.ati.tn> Thank you Ian. You are 100% right. It was not a single case. The distortion is general. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisation d'Ingénieurs Tél : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Envoyé : dimanche 6 septembre 2009 06:52 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso Objet : Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for certain types of advertising services though the same company. But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a part in the results reported? We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net > are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite > grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all > closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems >> incoherent to me. >> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself >> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >> >> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet >> Governance is not a good idea... >> >> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 8.5.409 / Base de données virale: 270.13.78/2347 - Date: 09/05/09 05:51:00 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Sep 6 09:38:10 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:38:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6 Sep 2009, at 01:51, Ian Peter wrote: > Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka > Google) > which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who > pay for > certain types of advertising services though the same company. I am not disputing this, but am wondering how you know. Has ths been documented and proven? I may have missed it, but don't remember seeing it. that is not to say I haven't heard the accusation before, I have just seen seen the evidence. Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to false gods. it is not the same as saying the secular profit making search engine. i am not sure whether you meant evil when compared to the Halal search engine that refers to real gods while google refers to false gods. or just thought of it as a way to say secular. (leaving aside the whole discussion of whether profit is theft and whether all theft is evil and where gods of good and evil exist etc ... - all wonderful topics in their opwn right) thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 09:44:56 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:44:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <20090906072830.093D725B027B@tounes-27.ati.tn> References: <20090906072830.093D725B027B@tounes-27.ati.tn> Message-ID: Freedom of expression becomes anathema if coupled with compulsion to "listen". The greatest freedom of all is the freedom to be selective about what one "hears". It's such a great freedom that I don't think anyone bothers to write it down, and it's often forgotten in this type of discussion. Without it "freedom of expression" becomes enslavement of everyone else. So everyone may have the right of free expression (which presumably includes the right to categorise things as more or less "Halal", and indeed the right to create search engines of all kinds), just so long as everyone retains the right to withhold attention, and not to use the search engine if that is their choice. Deirdre 2009/9/6 Tijani BEN JEMAA : > Thank you Ian. You are 100% right. It was not a single case. The distortion > is general. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Vice Président de la CIC > Fédération Mondiale des Organisation d'Ingénieurs > Tél : + 216 98 330 114 > Fax : + 216 70 860 861 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Envoyé : dimanche 6 septembre 2009 06:52 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso > Objet : Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) > which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for > certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on > search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results > reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying > news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or > political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a > part in the results reported? > > We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these > distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... > > > On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >> are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >> grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >> closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? >> >> --c.a. >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale > seems >>> incoherent to me. >>> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict > itself >>> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >>> >>> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to > Internet >>> Governance is not a good idea... >>> >>> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 8.5.409 / Base de données virale: 270.13.78/2347 - Date: 09/05/09 > 05:51:00 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Sun Sep 6 14:54:14 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:54:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong In-Reply-To: <353664.55771.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <353664.55771.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA40556.6070104@cavebear.com> On 09/05/2009 06:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > This is terribly wrong.... > Any man woman or child is fully entitled to bear hatred, bias and > prejudice. They are not entitled as Milton suggests to act upon it. > NCUC, Syracuse and Delft are not "free" and are certainly not free to > discriminate and cloister and exclude. I disagree with you and agree with Milton M. People are, and people will remain, creatures with biases and prejudices. And people will always aggregate and exclude on the basis of those biases and prejudices. People will congregate with relatives, friends and like-thinkers. Communities will form. Nations will form. Religions will form. There are specific acts that these communities, particularly national and religious communities, have come to place beyond the pale of acceptance. People who do these acts, whether from bias and prejudice or not, are generally considered to have violated the law of the community and are to be punished. Over the last 250 years the idea has developed that government and governance should be exercised without the taint of bias and prejudice that infects individuals. In the US we tend to wrap that idea with the words "due process" and "equal protection". There is also slowly developing the idea that in certain contexts, particularly one in which one has power and authority over another (such as in employment relationships), that people's ability to give differential treatment on the basis of sex, race, religion, and sometimes age and mental or physical state, is not to be allowed. But as a general matter, individual people remain able to give vent to their prejudices either in words or in acts, as long as those do not cross the bounds that have been imposed. That leaves a lot of space in which people may permissibly exercise their biases and prejudices. In the context of establishing bodies of government or government statements of aspirations, such as you cite, are nice. But as a practical matter they do not serve nearly as well as clearly articulated limitations on the power of those bodies of governance. That's why in the US Constitution our first amendment is cast in terms of limits on the power of our Congress to enact laws that restrict speech - we don't say that "free speech" is a right, rather we say that the government's power to restrict is greatly limited. --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 Sun Sep 6 15:30:24 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Respectful Interface Message-ID: <477512.62087.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am partaking on a rather long and sometimes boring independent work on International Norms for discourse. (I have found within a 20 mile radius there may be as many as 100 norms of respect, yet cities and rural have less in common than do cities from America and East Asia).   But today I took a side trip to an 1865 original schoolhouse from the American Southwest. Clearly the easiest place to find instruction on how to act is in education.   This was quite a fun find and I believe I will find the origins in Jolly old England.  It is relevant here as we watch and undertake a vote, tightening controls over interface on this list.  Rules change and cultures deviate in a general way. But our systems are not so different than how we treated abhorrent behavior in the past. In my grade school we did not have lashes, we had swats on the behind. I was a record holder no doubt ;-)   ps - I searched for copywrites - if any one knows, please let them know I am a scoundrel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: punishment for bad behavior.tif Type: image/tiff Size: 135136 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: List Monitors.tif Type: image/tiff Size: 51516 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 Sun Sep 6 15:52:18 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:52:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ( a couple of people disputed this) The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if you have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the bottom line. Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. On 6/09/09 11:38 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > On 6 Sep 2009, at 01:51, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka >> Google) >> which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who >> pay for >> certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > > I am not disputing this, but am wondering how you know. Has ths been > documented and proven? I may have missed it, but don't remember > seeing it. > > that is not to say I haven't heard the accusation before, I have just > seen seen the evidence. > > Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to > false gods. it is not the same as saying the secular profit making > search engine. i am not sure whether you meant evil when compared to > the Halal search engine that refers to real gods while google refers > to false gods. or just thought of it as a way to say secular. > > (leaving aside the whole discussion of whether profit is theft and > whether all theft is evil and where gods of good and evil exist > etc ... - all wonderful topics in their opwn right) > > thanks > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 6 15:56:08 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong In-Reply-To: <4AA40556.6070104@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <502054.42969.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Karl,   Let us examine where we do agree.   An important role any government has, is in limiting itself as pertains to directing or intruding into the conduct of individuals.   People have and are entitled to biases and prejudices. There is a fine and blurry line between making appropriate judgments of others and being judgmental.   No Government should expend public funds on actions that support segregation or unequal treatment of individuals. It is settled law and generally settled philosophy that segregation is not in keeping with good equality practice.   Here is not where we necessarily disagree but perhaps we use different language.  I would appreciate being "schooled" as to what is considered acceptable.   When is segregation different from our rights to privacy and free association?(not Freudian). When may a publicly funded official/instructor/employee proclaim as appropriate policy the right to private clubbing using public funding. (I ask this in light of pre-WWII hate propaganda)   (one of my favorite concepts to mull is segregation of athletic or intellectual competitions based upon the scoring known as handicapping. How horribly wrong in our public funded educational institutions and yet how completely necessary and how horribly wrong to do it any other way)    On our US American Labor Day weekend, I give great thanks that some labor to protect the rights of those whose labor has not brought them the luxury and time to so exercises their rights.     --- On Sun, 9/6/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 6:54 PM On 09/05/2009 06:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > This is terribly wrong.... > Any man woman or child is fully entitled to bear hatred, bias and > prejudice. They are not entitled as Milton suggests to act upon it. > NCUC, Syracuse and Delft are not "free" and are certainly not free to > discriminate and cloister and exclude. I disagree with you and agree with Milton M. People are, and people will remain, creatures with biases and prejudices. And people will always aggregate and exclude on the basis of those biases and prejudices.  People will congregate with relatives, friends and like-thinkers.  Communities will form.  Nations will form. Religions will form. There are specific acts that these communities, particularly national and religious communities, have come to place beyond the pale of acceptance. People who do these acts, whether from bias and prejudice or not, are generally considered to have violated the law of the community and are to be punished. Over the last 250 years the idea has developed that government and governance should be exercised without the taint of bias and prejudice that infects individuals.  In the US we tend to wrap that idea with the words "due process" and "equal protection". There is also slowly developing the idea that in certain contexts, particularly one in which one has power and authority over another (such as in employment relationships), that people's ability to give differential treatment on the basis of sex, race, religion, and sometimes age and mental or physical state, is not to be allowed. But as a general matter, individual people remain able to give vent to their prejudices either in words or in acts, as long as those do not cross the bounds that have been imposed.  That leaves a lot of space in which people may permissibly exercise their biases and prejudices. In the context of establishing bodies of government or government statements of aspirations, such as you cite, are nice.  But as a practical matter they do not serve nearly as well as clearly articulated limitations on the power of those bodies of governance.  That's why in the US Constitution our first amendment is cast in terms of limits on the power of our Congress to enact laws that restrict speech - we don't say that "free speech" is a right, rather we say that the government's power to restrict is greatly limited.         --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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 16:06:35 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 16:06:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Respectful Interface In-Reply-To: <477512.62087.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <477512.62087.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050909061306g354fe23eq1be1cbed347053f3@mail.gmail.com> Responding in thread .... And staying on the *both-rights-and-development-and-throw-in-security* ITC topic... and the famous edicts toward *"respect4all"* ... plus your current observations on variability (paraphrase) ... Well maybe that's what we get as a vacillating culture of betimes descriptive-ist (sort of bottom up?) and betimes prescriptive-ist (sort of top down?) provid*ers* and provis*ees and processes providing provisions.* Agreed- its at least about *interfaces* and *interfaces* about *networks*and etc. and these sometimes about people but often also about 'systems of systems' that are not flesh and blood. And in any case, single nodes being networks, that has to be taken into account as well. If we wish. P.S. Nothing I've been posting is about particular individuals. P.P.S. Say more perhaps in a side note on the intriguing international norms for discourse. And perhaps also 'decorum' the ''grand master-piece to observe". LDMF Online ARPANet forward.. And now *Respectful Interfaces Programme*; Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N... Y'all come on by. On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I am partaking on a rather long and sometimes boring independent work on > International Norms for discourse. (I have found within a 20 mile radius > there may be as many as 100 norms of respect, yet cities and rural have less > in common than do cities from America and East Asia). > > But today I took a side trip to an 1865 original schoolhouse from the > American Southwest. Clearly the easiest place to find instruction on how to > act is in education. > > This was quite a fun find and I believe I will find the origins in Jolly > old England. It is relevant here as we watch and undertake a vote, > tightening controls over interface on this list. Rules change and cultures > deviate in a general way. But our systems are not so different than how we > treated abhorrent behavior in the past. In my grade school we did not have > lashes, we had swats on the behind. I was a record holder no doubt ;-) > > ps - I searched for copywrites - if any one knows, please let them know I > am a scoundrel. > -------------- 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 Sep 6 17:53:06 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:53:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Hey, what about those who worship Mammon? Can you prove that Mammon doesn't exist? ;-) > -----Original Message----- > > Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to > false gods. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 6 17:58:41 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:58:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 6 20:22:22 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 06:22:22 +0600 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93AAE0A7DCF34B2297B2A3C85269BCF7@shahzad> Here is more information and background on this... forwarded from another list. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helmi Noman" <> For those interested in more info about this search engine http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090907/NATIONAL/709069866/1041/FOREIGN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Milton L Mueller" To: ; "Ian Peter" ; "Avri Doria" Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 3:58 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 6 22:33:31 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 19:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Respectful Interface & the Halal Search Engine Question Message-ID: <595665.53284.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sometimes if we look into one system - complex or "simple", we can find metaphors and guidance for our seemingly incomparable system.  Here I used the interface of children in a schoolhouse from differing homes and backgrounds to show the necessary harshness of discipline to maintain order. In order to interface well we must compromise our own values. This sounds so pedestrian and amoral. But in fact sometimes the greater good is the community, so molding and shaping our own desires so that we can "work" together is the greater good. (we all wish good luck to this list in this quest)   Milton* makes a beautiful case for Google being appropriate because it is successful. This is common "Karl Marx, opiate of the people" logic. And in fact it is true. Googles' goal is to appeal to the masses. Ease of use. Largest customer base. Larger and fastest anything. I use Google because through the last decade we have grown up together. We know the same fishing holes and have both studied the word structure and subset mentality that works so well.** I know the sponsors of paid results, I know the bloggosphere it frequents and the News sources it relies upon. Ian is quite right but that is just an is not a value. Strange but these are the same qualities I look for in a club to join to be around like minded buddies. My Vietnamese wife gathers with her Vietnamese friends because they share so much. I gather with my googleese brethren because we usually think alike, or at least dress and talk alike.   I fully agree with Karl and Linda.  We must make our systems integrate and interface with each other in a respectful of differences way.  We must constantly adapt our interfaces between our machines and be cognizant of the fact we are altering our own X values to do so. We must somehow, much like a developing nation, learn to integrate while maintaining integrity and holding inviolate the almost human rights of our telecommunication technology interface machines. To me integrity is synonymous with security. Privacy is a social political concept that changes so rapidly in geographics as to be totally morphing and transitory..(this precept should be considered when denying cross list posting - probably a bad interface idea, but personally I avoid it, like mixing in-laws with siblings)   *I use Milton as my Socratic whipping boy because, at least on this list he sounds so pedantic and absolute it is easy to set him up as the straw-man. Of course he knows I respect him and only use this dialog method through respect and because he is unfazed and unphased. We all owe Milton a debt of gratitude for his contributions to "keeping it alive" over the past decade. Kudos and dittos to """All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-)"""M&M 9/6/09   ** Google and I can speak with the same syntax and sentence structure. We both know when a conjunction is necessary and when it is superfluous. We know how to put subject nouns and adjectives together in order to communicate more better and sometimes we even repeat words for fun. We love to use headliner leaders to change words from one science to another. We respect each other. I hope my life is spent searching and so is his. --- On Sun, 9/6/09, linda misek-falkoff wrote: From: linda misek-falkoff Subject: Re: Respectful Interface To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Voice of Freedom" , "l.d. misek-falkoff" , respectful.interfaces at gmail.com Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 8:06 PM Responding in thread   ....   And staying on the both-rights-and-development-and-throw-in-security ITC topic... and the famous edicts toward "respect4all" ... plus your current observations on variability (paraphrase) ...   Well maybe that's what we get as a vacillating culture of betimes descriptive-ist (sort of bottom up?) and betimes prescriptive-ist (sort of top down?) providers and provisees and processes providing provisions.   Agreed-  its at least about interfaces and interfaces about networks and etc. and these sometimes about people but often also about 'systems of systems' that are not flesh and blood. And in any case, single nodes being networks, that has to be taken into account as well.   If we wish.   P.S. Nothing I've been posting is about particular individuals.   P.P.S. Say more perhaps in a side note on the intriguing international norms for discourse.   And perhaps also 'decorum' the ''grand master-piece to observe".   LDMF Online ARPANet forward.. And  now *Respectful Interfaces Programme*; Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N...   Y'all come on by. On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: I am partaking on a rather long and sometimes boring independent work on International Norms for discourse. (I have found within a 20 mile radius there may be as many as 100 norms of respect, yet cities and rural have less in common than do cities from America and East Asia).   But today I took a side trip to an 1865 original schoolhouse from the American Southwest. Clearly the easiest place to find instruction on how to act is in education.   This was quite a fun find and I believe I will find the origins in Jolly old England.  It is relevant here as we watch and undertake a vote, tightening controls over interface on this list.  Rules change and cultures deviate in a general way. But our systems are not so different than how we treated abhorrent behavior in the past. In my grade school we did not have lashes, we had swats on the behind. I was a record holder no doubt ;-)   ps - I searched for copywrites - if any one knows, please let them know I am a scoundrel. -------------- 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 Mon Sep 7 04:36:48 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:06:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <93AAE0A7DCF34B2297B2A3C85269BCF7@shahzad> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93AAE0A7DCF34B2297B2A3C85269BCF7@shahzad> Message-ID: <4AA4C620.4010301@itforchange.net> Hi All All the defense of 'insider or closed communities' on the Internet given by a few in this thread is indeed inspiring. A good indication of how we can easily lose perspective in the new digital reality - which is indeed very new in many ways, and needs a new thorough consideration. To be able to build such communities is just an extension of the fundamental right of association which has more or less been uniformly recognized, and is a key socio-political right. However one does understand the concerns of those who feel that such a religious community based search engine may indeed be a dangerous trend. And we need to look at these concerns closely and seriously. The way the digital space can connect all those with similar views - and, this is important to note, correspondingly, cut off all those whose views we are already prejudiced not to agree with - has a deleterious impact on 'public space/sphere/ media'. We need a strong and vibrant public sphere/ media, which is a space where we are almost nilly willy thrown in along with many others with whom we may not instinctively agree, to keep our polity, which is the basis of our rights, alive. There are no rights without an active polity, and no active polity without a shared public sphere/ media. Digital reality is having a very strong negative impact on such shared spaces across socio-political spectrum. In India, though we were always a very unequal society, at least till very recently everyone, rich and the (literate) poor, more or less read the same newspaper. We now have media which is strongly socially-segmented, and it portends very badly for the future of our society as a cohesive socio-political entity. My point is, while we hail our rights, not to think of structural deformities that may be getting set up in our societies, and not thinking of the possible remedial actions - new political and governance mechanism being perhaps primary among them - we may be being short-sighted. Our rights wont go far if we lose our political character. parminder Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Here is more information and background on this... forwarded from another > list. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Helmi Noman" <> > > > For those interested in more info about this search engine > > http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090907/NATIONAL/709069866/1041/FOREIGN > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Milton L Mueller" > To: ; "Ian Peter" ; "Avri > Doria" > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 3:58 AM > Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored > links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google > was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings > depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - > it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the > alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good > competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a > friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> ( a couple of people disputed this) >> >> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >> you >> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >> bottom line. >> >> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Sep 7 04:37:58 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 09:37:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi I think what's important here is the principle of transparency. As long as gatekeepers of information (such as search engines) are transparent about how they select content, including political, economic, cultural etc criteria, it's not necessarily a problem. Transparency needs to be coupled with "media literacy" amongst users. They need to know that information presented to them can be affected by the values and bias of gatekeepers, and know how to find out about it and navigate around information to find what they need. Whilst the medium is very different, the issues are similar to newspapers and broadcasters having political bias. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 06 September 2009 22:59 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Avri Doria Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 4401 (20090906) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 04:54:28 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 10:54:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Hi Until we know what this search engine will leave out/ block, and presuming that the intentions behind this filtering are good and ethical, then what is the problem? It is no different from a public/ community library, NOT keeping pornographic material, terrorism training manuals, books on how to torture and kill human beings, how to smuggle endangered species and illegal drugs etc. You will find books on these subjects, treated from an academic, societal perspective, but not espousing these practices. Regards, Rui 2009/9/7 Lisa Horner > Hi > > I think what's important here is the principle of transparency. As long > as gatekeepers of information (such as search engines) are transparent > about how they select content, including political, economic, cultural > etc criteria, it's not necessarily a problem. Transparency needs to be > coupled with "media literacy" amongst users. They need to know that > information presented to them can be affected by the values and bias of > gatekeepers, and know how to find out about it and navigate around > information to find what they need. Whilst the medium is very > different, the issues are similar to newspapers and broadcasters having > political bias. > > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 06 September 2009 22:59 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Avri Doria > Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored > links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. > Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular > rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won > the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for > than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually > a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market > competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market > FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first > few > > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such > if > > you > > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. > You > > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's > the > > bottom line. > > > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > > unproven. But articles such as this > http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 4401 (20090906) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ > > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 7 05:44:01 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:14:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on Market fundamentalism :), here it is: It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started with a small box on the left side with a different background color. Not it has migrated right to the top of 'search results', in the same font, color and background, and is so prominent that it blocks two third of my browser view. So watch out for what happens next as market power of Google increases further, and regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural reasons. Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion racket, to sell advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets looked up by a user in the search engine. So if you search for 'sony cameras' the top advertised positions are auctioned out, and of course if sony is interested in not having users carried to the websites of their rivals when what they really came looking for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals to also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> ( a couple of people disputed this) >> >> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >> you >> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >> bottom line. >> >> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Sep 7 06:08:39 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:08:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <4AA2F565.5090704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <701af9f70909070308k17342152k8f4b82433cb327a1@mail.gmail.com> Ian, totally agree with you. The characteristics that you have highlighted have been in interplay as the Internet becomes a more powerful space to be controlled and controlled with! On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) > which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for > certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on > search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results > reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying > news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or > political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a > part in the results reported? > > We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these > distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... > > > On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >> are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >> grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >> closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? >> >> --c.a. >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems >>> incoherent to me. >>> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself >>> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >>> >>> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet >>> Governance is not a good idea... >>> >>> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 06:48:15 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:48:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder and Ian Just like for Milton, when I search on google, the sponsored links ARE clearly marked, identified as such and separated from the rest, in a separate frame on the RIGHT hand side. What is happening is that google is set differently in different countries. I just did a quick test here looking for the same product with google .za; .uk; .au; .in; and .nz. BUT even then, my geographical location gives away where I am and google OVERRRIDES some of the display. At any rate, with all the domains that I tried, Australia had sponsored links above the normal links, whereas the others did not. Google has become a translator's tool, as translators look up the results count of different ways of translating something. As a member of three translators' lists, I often witness disagreements of the most frequent way of saying something based on google counts, as people in different countries get different counts for the exact same search! Even the commemorative google logos for special occasions are country-dependent. On Saturday 29 August, a member of one of the translators' lists sent a note through about the "cute" google logo that day. Within minutes there were 15 replies asking what she was taling about - they could not see anything different in the country they were writing from. Others wrote in to confirm that they could see the different logo - Michael Jackson's black shoes and white gloves, commemorating the singer's birthday. Regards, Rui 2009/9/7 Parminder > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > > > > Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on Market > fundamentalism :), here it is: > > It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started with a small > box on the left side with a different background color. Not it has migrated > right to the top of 'search results', in the same font, color and > background, and is so prominent that it blocks two third of my browser view. > So watch out for what happens next as market power of Google increases > further, and regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural > reasons. > > Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion racket, to > sell advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets looked up by a user > in the search engine. So if you search for 'sony cameras' the top advertised > positions are auctioned out, and of course if sony is interested in not > having users carried to the websites of their rivals when what they really > came looking for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals > to also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com ] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 7 07:17:49 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:47:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4AA4EBDD.1080103@itforchange.net> Dear Rui Enclosed is how it comes for me. See the paid versus 'neutral' content space, the former takes most of my first browser view. Earlier it used be a small box on the right with a light yellow background. parminder parminder Rui Correia wrote: > Dear Parminder and Ian > > Just like for Milton, when I search on google, the sponsored links ARE > clearly marked, identified as such and separated from the rest, in a > separate frame on the RIGHT hand side. > > What is happening is that google is set differently in different > countries. I just did a quick test here looking for the same product > with google .za; .uk; .au; .in; and .nz. BUT even then, my > geographical location gives away where I am and google OVERRRIDES some > of the display. > > At any rate, with all the domains that I tried, Australia had > sponsored links above the normal links, whereas the others did not. > > Google has become a translator's tool, as translators look up the > results count of different ways of translating something. As a member > of three translators' lists, I often witness disagreements of the most > frequent way of saying something based on google counts, as people in > different countries get different counts for the exact same search! > > Even the commemorative google logos for special occasions are > country-dependent. On Saturday 29 August, a member of one of the > translators' lists sent a note through about the "cute" google logo > that day. Within minutes there were 15 replies asking what she was > taling about - they could not see anything different in the country > they were writing from. Others wrote in to confirm that they could see > the different logo - Michael Jackson's black shoes and white gloves, > commemorating the singer's birthday. > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/9/7 Parminder > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) >> > > Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on > Market fundamentalism :), here it is: > > It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started > with a small box on the left side with a different background > color. Not it has migrated right to the top of 'search results', > in the same font, color and background, and is so prominent that > it blocks two third of my browser view. So watch out for what > happens next as market power of Google increases further, and > regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural > reasons. > > Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion > racket, to sell advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets > looked up by a user in the search engine. So if you search for > 'sony cameras' the top advertised positions are auctioned out, > and of course if sony is interested in not having users carried to > the websites of their rivals when what they really came looking > for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals to > also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. > > Parminder >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Avri Doria >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >>> >>> ( a couple of people disputed this) >>> >>> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >>> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >>> you >>> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >>> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >>> bottom line. >>> >>> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >>> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >>> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _sony_camera__-_Google_Search.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 121585 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 Mon Sep 7 07:20:45 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:20:45 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rui thanks for pointing that out ­ I wasn¹t aware of the differences in various countries. Just noticed that google.co.uk, google.co.in and google.com.au all carry links sponsored links in the same font at the top of search results, and IMHO not very clearly differentiated. I note google.com does not do this. So certainly more than just Australia carries this pattern, but I am not sure how widespread it is. (also note that if in Australia I type google.com it redirects to google.com.au ­ I have to retype to get the US site). I would be interested in research on the level of understanding of users of the differences where this occurs. I have seen evidence that many users place greater trust in sponsored links and when buying tend to spend more at sponsored link sites. Then there is the problem Parminder points out. On a search for Sony, the first result returned could well be for a rival company who paid most for the sponsored link on that keyword to get top placing. Instead of going to Sony¹s site, I follow the link to another manufacturer altogether. No domain squatting rules here... On 7/09/09 8:48 PM, "Rui Correia" wrote: > Dear Parminder and Ian > > Just like for Milton, when I search on google, the sponsored links ARE clearly > marked, identified as such and separated from the rest, in a separate frame on > the RIGHT hand side. > > What is happening is that google is set differently in different countries. I > just did a quick test here looking for the same product with google .za; .uk; > .au; .in; and .nz. BUT even then, my geographical location gives away where I > am and google OVERRRIDES some of the display. > > At any rate, with all the domains that I tried, Australia had sponsored links > above the normal links, whereas the others did not.  > > Google has become a translator's tool, as translators look up the results > count of different ways of translating something. As a member of three > translators' lists, I often witness disagreements of the most frequent way of > saying something based on google counts, as people in different countries get > different counts for the exact same search! > > Even the commemorative google logos for special occasions are > country-dependent. On Saturday 29 August, a member of one of the translators' > lists sent a note through about the "cute" google logo that day. Within > minutes there were 15 replies asking what she was taling about - they could > not see anything different in the country they were writing from. Others wrote > in to confirm that they could see the different logo - Michael Jackson's black > shoes and white gloves, commemorating the singer's birthday.    > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/9/7 Parminder >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored >>> links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google >>> was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings >>> depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - >>> it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the >>> alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good >>> competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a >>> friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) >>> >> >> Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on Market >> fundamentalism :), here it is: >> >> It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started with a small >> box on the left side with a different background color. Not it has migrated >> right to the top of 'search results', in the same font, color and background, >> and is so prominent that it blocks two third of my browser view. So watch out >> for what happens next as market power of Google increases further, and >> regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural reasons. >> >> Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion racket, to sell >> advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets looked up by a user in the >> search engine. So if you search for 'sony cameras' the top advertised >> positions are  auctioned out, and of course if sony is interested in not >> having users carried to the websites of their rivals when what they really >> came looking for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals >> to also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. >> >> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >>>> >>>> ( a couple of people disputed this) >>>> >>>> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >>>> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >>>> you >>>> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >>>> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >>>> bottom line. >>>> >>>> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >>>> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >>>> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 10:41:44 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:41:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs Message-ID: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the IGF. I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard about with, if possible, the following information : - Title of the event - Date - Location - Main organizers - Address of the web site where more information can be found This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. Thank you in advance for your help. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Mon Sep 7 11:08:22 2009 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:08:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >Dear all, > >We are trying to collate an extensive list of >the various initiatives at national and regional >levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of >the IGF. > >I sollicit your help in making this list as >comprehensive as possible. Please indicate the >initiatives you have initiated, participated in >or heard about with, if possible, the following >information : Bertrand, you know the event; in any case, here you find the data: > >Title of the event IGF Italia 2009 >Date 5 - 7 October 2009 >Location Pisa, at Research area of National Research Council >Main organizers IIT/CNR, ISOC Italia and W3C Italia >Address of the web site where more information can be found www.igfitalia.it Stefano > >This information can be sent to me offlist to >prevent clogging the list, and we'll collate it >in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > >Information about the Carribean, Latin America, >East Africa and West Africa regional events, as >well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, >Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so >there is no no need to duplicate. > >Thank you in advance for your help. > >Best > >Bertrand > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information >/ Special Envoy for the Information Society >Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and >European Affairs >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 12:21:45 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:21:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f60909070921y2b5fd2e8q7c249344a149c4f8@mail.gmail.com> Here is one from the Caribbean that was just completed - just making sure that was this picked up already: - Caribbean Internet Governance Forum - August 24-26, 2009 - St. Kitts-Nevis - Caribbean Telecommunications Union - http://www.ctu.int/cigf-2009-overview On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at > national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the > IGF. > > I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. > Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard > about with, if possible, the following information : > > - Title of the event > - Date > - Location > - Main organizers > - Address of the web site where more information can be found > > This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, > and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > > Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa > regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, > Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. > > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Sep 7 12:33:09 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:33:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Thanks to everyone for their comments and edits to the statement. Please find a new version below - I hope it addresses everyone's concerns. I suggest that we take further comments until Thursday, and then agree on a finalised version. List coordinators - I'm not sure if we need to take a formal vote on this before it can be accepted and submitted? I'm happy to contact the DCs to ask if they'd like to co-sign it. Thanks, Lisa DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. As well as having legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4403 (20090907) __________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 13:44:06 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:44:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <45ed74050909071044m12791111q54703807cba48bc4@mail.gmail.com> *----- respectful interfaces e-memo 090709 -----* Dear Anja and Lisa and All, Just adding a related thought. While we began early on discussing "Rights and Responsibilities," (more melodic than "Rights and Duties"?), with the word "Principles" coming forward it is perhaps timely to suggest a virtue of the earlier phrasing as well - for where the group feels it fits. A reason is that "right" now it is felt that "rights" are being exercised by some 'actors' exlusive of full participation by Civil Society at large. Pointing out that those with rights also have responsibilities, and envisioning for simplification sake a little 4 x 4 chart (or related knowledge representation format) could do some real good work that seems to be desired across the broad base here. Warm regards to all and all laboring on USA's labor day, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D). Internet ARPAnet fwd. 2007Candidate GAID. Other Affiliations on Request. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 07:30 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Lisa, Thanks! > > > > I like your suggestion that the IRP be given the opportunity to work > > with all main sessions, and offer to work with all others--perhaps by > > posting guidelines or suggestions to them by email or a link on the > > IGF page. > > > > I would appreciate it if you can propose a short statement on the list > > as soon as possible for comment and discussion. > > > > Here is the April IGC statement: > > > > 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. > > > > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 13:50:46 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 20:50:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: > > DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > •       Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. How on earth can we justify saying this? -- 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 16:12:34 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:42:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA56932.8080609@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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 7 16:18:48 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:18:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Couldn't agree more, Lisa. To this need for transparency I would add the need to ensure that no search engine is assisted to monopolise the space by a variety of anti-competitive measures. These might include * bundling with operating systems * mobile phone deals for special search links * carrier preferred supplier deals I am sure there are many more - and I'm not yet convinced that user choice will be all that strong a factor in determining which search engines (with accompanying biases) people use. On 7/09/09 6:37 PM, "Lisa Horner" wrote: > Hi > > I think what's important here is the principle of transparency. As long > as gatekeepers of information (such as search engines) are transparent > about how they select content, including political, economic, cultural > etc criteria, it's not necessarily a problem. Transparency needs to be > coupled with "media literacy" amongst users. They need to know that > information presented to them can be affected by the values and bias of > gatekeepers, and know how to find out about it and navigate around > information to find what they need. Whilst the medium is very > different, the issues are similar to newspapers and broadcasters having > political bias. > > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 06 September 2009 22:59 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Avri Doria > Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored > links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. > Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular > rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won > the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for > than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually > a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market > competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market > FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> ( a couple of people disputed this) >> >> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first > few >> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such > if >> you >> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. > You >> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's > the >> bottom line. >> >> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >> unproven. But articles such as this > http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 4401 (20090906) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 7 16:23:55 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:23:55 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87194F3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> There will be a Danish IGF in Copenhagen, October 6. And the German one will be probably on November 3, 2009 in Berlin. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it] Gesendet: Mo 07.09.2009 17:08 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Betreff: Re: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs Dear all, We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the IGF. I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard about with, if possible, the following information : Bertrand, you know the event; in any case, here you find the data: * Title of the event IGF Italia 2009 * Date 5 - 7 October 2009 * Location Pisa, at Research area of National Research Council * Main organizers IIT/CNR, ISOC Italia and W3C Italia * Address of the web site where more information can be found www.igfitalia.it Stefano * This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. Thank you in advance for your help. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 7 16:37:23 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:37:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> Bertrand, Did you get info on the LA&C regional one already (Rio, Aug.11-13)? In any case, the website is http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/. We hope to get summary reports in Spanish, Portuguese and English online soon. [] fraterno --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at > national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the > IGF. > > I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. > Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard > about with, if possible, the following information : > > - Title of the event > - Date > - Location > - Main organizers > - Address of the web site where more information can be found > > This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and > we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > > Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa > regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, > Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. > > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 7 16:58:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <693741.33241.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think McTim meant to write:   How on earth can a thinking person not say this? --- On Mon, 9/7/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 8:12 PM McTim, could you explain why you say: "How on earth can we justify saying this?" I am sorry that I do not have time to document any cases, but I hope someone else will. These are some quick links I found, but did not review: There have been proposals by governments to implement some kind of filtering or censorship in several countries (I believe) See: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Austrailia http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship http://koeus.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/france-joins-the-list-of-internet-censoring-countries/ Germany. http://netzpolitik.org/2009/the-dawning-of-internet-censorship-in-germany/ http://opennet.net/blog/2009/01/internet-censorship-germany While I do agree that one has the right to JOIN an network that includes and excludes certain topics, much as any association or club might do, I do not think a government can IMPOSE these restrictions on a segment of the Internet. I am in a rush today, so I may have missed something obvious here. Sorry if that is the case. Either way, I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks, Best, Ginger McTim wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: •       Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. How on earth can we justify saying this? -----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 Mon Sep 7 17:51:09 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 02:51:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call: Realizing our Human Rights as the foundation of Internet Rights Message-ID: <701af9f70909071451k7e03c697j66d7558d4e9ad426@mail.gmail.com> Realizing our Human Rights as the foundation of Internet Rights - Call to both IGC, IGF, United Nations, its multistakeholders and the Youth of the World to accept the UDHR as the foundation of Human Rights recognition on the Internet (termed as Internet Rights) Originated from: Fouad Bajwa (Pakistan) member IGC I would request all stakeholders to fundamentally approach the issue of Internet Rights and propose it to the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and its multistakeholders that the basis of furthering any efforts with regards to Internet Governance and to strengthen Internet Governance efforts, all should be based on fundamental Human Rights without discrimination, and that, while collectively agreed by all member states participating, including their private sector and Civil Society stakeholders should mutually respect Human Rights both offline in their countries and online on the Internet while continuing to further the Internet Governance Forum and seek an Internet Governance Development Agenda. I believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the building foundation of Internet Rights. It calls for progressive measures, national and international, to secure our universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of the territories under their jurisdiction. Human Rights are the foundation of Human Development both social and economic and the building blocks of legislation. In order to further any process on the platform of the United Nations, its member countries agree, recognize and further the UN Charter. Though, the term “Internet Rights” appears to be vague at this stage but I believe that it is both the foundation of Internet Governance and the future of the Internet with respect to the fundamental rights that all the users of the Internet and those that are yet to use it, are entitled to, without any discrimination as the Internet itself is an extension of human mind and endeavor evolved through human based on progressive, conceptualization, evolution, communication, innovation and usage by all of us human beings despite the prevailing polities today. For the past few days I have been motivated to explore my own realization of Human Rights in an era where there are massive rights violations in a developing region like my own and many others. I believe that a right is a freedom of some kind; it is something to which you, I or all of us are entitled to by default but our individual, mutual, realization, respect and practice is the fundamental guidance for all multistakeholders to respect these freedoms in Governance and Policy Making with regards to the Internet. Today there are 192 countries that are members of the United Nations and this organization came into being in 1945 shortly after the end of World War II initiated by five major powers that won the war namely, Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union and United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was created in 1948 and agreed upon by the members of the United Nations. The UDHR was adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948 and the United Nations called upon all its member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries and territories.” The UDHR document lists 30 rights to which everyone are entitled – no matter who they are or where they live – simply because they are human being – where as the recognition of (according to the UDHR preamble) the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all the members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Despite the fact that this Declaration was adopted by only 58 countries (that were UN members at that time), today there are 192 member countries that sign and accept the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while many laws exist to protect human rights. Human Rights are defined as: “The basic rights and freedoms, to which all human beings are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.” The 30 human rights in the UDHR (summarizing) include the right to live in freedom and safety; the right to travel; the right to belong to a country; the right to own things and share them; the right to believe what you want to believe; and the right to say what you think. They even include the right to enjoy the things you enjoy doing and all universally accepted (by the United Nations and its member countries) rights have been laid out at the end of this discussion. Yet, millions of people continue to suffer because their rights are not respected although the UDHR protects the right to adequate food; more than 15000 children die of starvation every day. The UDHR also protects the right to free speech, but thousands are in prison for saying what they believed to be true and the UDHR accepted by 192 member countries of the United Nations accept the UDHR but still their citizens continue to be abused. The UDHR forbids slavery, but 27 million people live as slaves today – more than twice the number in the days of the slave trade and more than a billion people are unable to read, although the UDHR includes the right to an education. These are very serious abuses of human rights but it is also true that possibly 90% of the human population of the world, both offline in the physical world and online in the virtual Internet world are unable to name to name more than three of their thirty rights universally accepted by 192 member countries and the United Nations. Who then will tell these people? I believe the answer today lies with us in the form of a guideline by the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan: “Young friends all over the world, you are the ones who must realize these rights, now and for all time. Their fate and future is in your hands!” We must realize and formally accept that with the invention of the Internet and now after over three decades, where human advancement has taken place with the advent of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the Internet in particular, the violations of Human Rights and human abuse with (respect to not recognizing the UDHR) continue to take place throughout the world in the various 192 member nations of the United Nations. There is a need to revisit the UDHR, recognize and respect these fundamental human rights both in the offline and online world. I believe that if the United Nations Internet Governance Forum does not formally recognize the UDHR to be the basis and foundation of Human Rights over the Internet and/or does not include a main first theme and session on Internet Rights in its proceedings in 2009 at Sharam, Egypt, both the participating members from 192 countries accepting and respecting both the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct violation of the fundamental Human Rights and entitlement of these rights to their citizens in light of the United Nations Charter. For the Internet Governance Forum to continue into its next era after its review by the General Assembly for its continuation, it is fundamental for the forum to revisit the UDHR and revive the recognition of this Declaration by its member multistakeholders and accept that the UDHR is the fundamental building block of Human Rights over the Internet. This recognition may be termed formally as the declaration of “Internet Rights” with mutual agreement and consensus. Only then the process towards Internet Governance for Development or the Internet Governance Development Agenda will evolve with the mutual respect for Human Rights without any discrimination. I would like to call upon the members of the IGC, the organizers of the IGF, the United Nations, Governments and the People of UN’s 192 Members Countries and the Youth of the world to realize our fundamental Human Rights defined in the UDHR as the foundation for evolving a universally acceptable Internet Rights charter and accept the UDHR as the foundation of Human Rights recognition on the Internet (termed as Internet Rights). The UDHR is given below for dissemination and circulation to participating Governments, Private Sector, Civil Society and Youth Members of the world: Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 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. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (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. Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. ***** Please feel free to edit or kindly sign this call and let us forward it to the IGF Secretariat and as many stakeholders that we can reach out to! ***** -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 00:05:52 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:05:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > McTim, could you explain why you say: sure > > DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for > IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in > the information society, but human rights and associated principles have > received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > •       Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance > processes and practice. It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, when in fact, most of them are absolutely not. It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. -- 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Sep 8 03:29:52 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:29:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:05 AM, McTim wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> McTim, could you explain why you say: > > sure > >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme for >> IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The >> WSIS >> Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human >> rights in >> the information society, but human rights and associated principles >> have >> received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is >> problematic as: >> • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, >> privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance >> processes and practice. > > It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, when in > fact, most of them are absolutely not. > > It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments > are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about > censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. > > AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. How about this? Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices many governments are pursuing at the national level. This is the focus of Ginger's examples, not global Internet governance. Of course, one could make the case that some instances of the latter also restrict internationally recognized rights, e.g. WHOIS, but that'd require some nuance and specificity that it might be difficult to get quick agreement on. Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 04:54:13 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 06:54:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:29 AM, William Drake wrote: > How about this? > >  Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices many > governments > are pursuing at the national level. much better. -- 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 05:15:51 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:15:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi, Le 8 sept. 09 à 09:29, William Drake a écrit : > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:05 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >>> >>> • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, >>> privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance >>> processes and practice. >> >> It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, >> when in >> fact, most of them are absolutely not. >> >> It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments >> are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about >> censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. >> >> AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. > > How about this? > > Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices > many governments > are pursuing at the national level. > > This is the focus of Ginger's examples, not global Internet > governance. Of course, one could make the case that some > instances of the latter also restrict internationally recognized > rights, e.g. WHOIS, but that'd require some nuance and specificity > that it might be difficult to get quick agreement on. I don't think we should restrict to "policies and practices many governments are pursuing at the national level". Private companies also show such policies and practices, and implement them. Same case with IGOs, through international agreements and "technical" projects. Same for "multistakeholder organizations". Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", showing that the statement makes a difference between these policies at different levels. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Sep 8 05:38:22 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:38:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Meryem, On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi, > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 09:29, William Drake a écrit : >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:05 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>>> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >>>> >>>> • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of >>>> expression, >>>> privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance >>>> processes and practice. >>> >>> It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, >>> when in >>> fact, most of them are absolutely not. >>> >>> It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments >>> are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about >>> censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. >>> >>> AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. >> >> How about this? >> >> Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, >> privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices >> many governments >> are pursuing at the national level. >> >> This is the focus of Ginger's examples, not global Internet >> governance. Of course, one could make the case that some >> instances of the latter also restrict internationally recognized >> rights, e.g. WHOIS, but that'd require some nuance and specificity >> that it might be difficult to get quick agreement on. > > I don't think we should restrict to "policies and practices many > governments are pursuing at the national level". Private companies > also show such policies and practices, and implement them. Same case > with IGOs, through international agreements and "technical" > projects. Same for "multistakeholder organizations". > Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on the > table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. > If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be watered > down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current IG > processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > showing that the statement makes a difference between these policies > at different levels. My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice" seems too sweepingly totalizing. Cheers, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 05:41:38 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:41:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Thanks Lisa for this new version. I am not sure we should name the two Covenants. The point is that there are many other international instruments that also apply (have a look at e.g. http:// www2.ohchr.org/english/law/). Some are even of direct concern in our field of interest. Why naming only ICERD and ICCPR when talking of legally binding instruments? I think it's better to refer to "International human rights instruments". What about these minor changes: > Le 7 sept. 09 à 18:33, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >> >> [...] >> • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the >> International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights are >> legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have >> a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' >> human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. • INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS are legally binding. Governments ... >> • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. >> It balances different rights against each other to preserve >> individual and public interest. As well as having legally binding >> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for >> addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with >> security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to >> freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >> obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows >> us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that ALSO has practical ...public interest. IN ADDITION TO ITS legally binding ... Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 05:49:38 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:49:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > Hi Meryem, > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. >> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >> policies at different levels. > > My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > sweepingly totalizing. If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable to you and Mc Tim? Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Sep 8 06:06:44 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:06:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>> enough. >>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>> policies at different levels. >> >> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >> sweepingly totalizing. > > If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > to you and Mc Tim? Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no misunderstanding. Cheers, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 06:22:31 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:22:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place in the wider Africa, Central Asia, Asia, South Asia, South East Asia & the Pacific and Australasia. Would this be a key point to include in regional IGFs and the IGF itself to help build and lift the capacity of these regions to stimulate country or regional level IGF activities? This would also make clear why some countries that are member of the UN adopt a very radical approach to finishing the Internet Governance Forum like what happened during the last Open Consultations? I feel happy to see that your regions are making good amounts of progress, Brazil and Europe in particular whereas the rest of the world needs some IG related stimulation and capacity building and inclusiveness is a very big area for Internet Governance. It is just like Human Rights that more than 90% population on the planet isn't aware of their human rights. That figure is way over for IG. On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Bertrand, > > Did you get info on the LA&C regional one already (Rio, Aug.11-13)? In > any case, the website is http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/. We hope to get > summary reports in Spanish, Portuguese and English online soon. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at >> national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the >> IGF. >> >> I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. >> Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard >> about with, if possible, the following information : >> >>    - Title of the event >>    - Date >>    - Location >>    - Main organizers >>    - Address of the web site where more information can be found >> >> This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and >> we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. >> >> Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa >> regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, >> Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. >> >> >> Thank you in advance for your help. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Tue Sep 8 07:03:45 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:03:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of communications technologies and whether they support or undermine human rights. However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's suggestions about rights instruments. Thanks, Lisa --------------------------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. * International human rights instruments are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>> enough. >>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>> policies at different levels. >> >> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >> sweepingly totalizing. > > If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > to you and Mc Tim? Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no misunderstanding. Cheers, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Tue Sep 8 07:05:02 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:05:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <45ed74050909071044m12791111q54703807cba48bc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <45ed74050909071044m12791111q54703807cba48bc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C929@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Linda That sounds like an interesting idea. Would you be able to take the lead with that? It could be a useful illustrative and educational resource. All the best, Lisa From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff Sent: 07 September 2009 18:44 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anja Kovacs Cc: l.d. misek-falkoff; respectful.interfaces at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles ----- respectful interfaces e-memo 090709 ----- Dear Anja and Lisa and All, Just adding a related thought. While we began early on discussing "Rights and Responsibilities," (more melodic than "Rights and Duties"?), with the word "Principles" coming forward it is perhaps timely to suggest a virtue of the earlier phrasing as well - for where the group feels it fits. A reason is that "right" now it is felt that "rights" are being exercised by some 'actors' exlusive of full participation by Civil Society at large. Pointing out that those with rights also have responsibilities, and envisioning for simplification sake a little 4 x 4 chart (or related knowledge representation format) could do some real good work that seems to be desired across the broad base here. Warm regards to all and all laboring on USA's labor day, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D). Internet ARPAnet fwd. 2007Candidate GAID. Other Affiliations on Request. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 07:30 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Lisa, Thanks! > > I like your suggestion that the IRP be given the opportunity to work > with all main sessions, and offer to work with all others--perhaps by > posting guidelines or suggestions to them by email or a link on the > IGF page. > > I would appreciate it if you can propose a short statement on the list > as soon as possible for comment and discussion. > > Here is the April IGC statement: > > 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. > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > 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-rage s-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 > > > > 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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.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 Tue Sep 8 07:24:56 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:54:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA63F08.2070404@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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 07:33:20 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:33:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. Best, Meryem Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > Hi all > > I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > which can limit access to information and expression. > Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological > design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact > on the nature of communications technologies and whether they > support or undermine human rights. > > However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > > New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > suggestions about rights instruments. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > --------------------------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > rights and associated principles have received very little > attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > in the Internet era as before. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for > addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with > security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to > freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations > of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive > the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation > of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they > deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy > principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >>> Hi Meryem, >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>> enough. >>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>> policies at different levels. >>> >>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>> sweepingly totalizing. >> >> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> to you and Mc Tim? > > Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > misunderstanding. > > Cheers, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 8 07:37:58 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:37:58 +0600 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: PTA Orders Monitoring of Telephony (data and voice) Traffic Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Here goes the privacy...and privacy rights of Pakistani Citizens ;)))) The proposed monitoring system will have following features: (a) Capability to monitor, control, measure and record traffic in real-time; (b) Capability for complete signaling record, including but not limited for billing; (c) Capability to accurately measure the quality of service; (d) A complete list of the Pakistani customers; and (e) Complete details of capacity leased by the licensee(s) to their customers. "interesting" Thought that following 5 page document at the PTA website will be of interest to you: http://www.pta.gov.pk/media/draft_tel_traffic_reg_09_1.pdf Thanks and best wishes Shahzad Ahmad Bytesforall, Pakistan Pakistan ICT Policy Monitors Network -------------- 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 Tue Sep 8 07:44:40 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:44:40 -0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place > in the wider Africa, I am reading this mail at the East African IGF. There is another coming up for West Africa soon. Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. Pls don't assume hat silence means that nothing is happening. -- 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Sep 8 07:56:51 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:56:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place >> in the wider Africa, > > >I am reading this mail at the East African IGF. There is another >coming up for West Africa soon. > >Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. > >Pls don't assume hat silence means that nothing is happening. > and the East Africa IGF is the outcome of national IGF processes in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Bertrand, I'll try to get information for you about Burundi and Rwanda. Adam >-- >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 08:07:53 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:07:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on the table >>> at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. >>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be watered down, >>> then we could says "... threatened by SOME current IG processes and >>> practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final paragraph >>> mentions "global, regional and national policiies", showing that the >>> statement makes a difference between these policies at different levels. >> >> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest more >> encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get consensus on it feel >> free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by current internet governance >> processes and practice" seems too sweepingly totalizing. > > If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no misunderstanding, > and have the statement simply says "... threatened by SOME OF THE current IG > processes and practice". Is that agreeable to you and Mc Tim? As bill says, there is still room for confusion. If we want to name and shame, let's do it. I was happy with bills language. Otherwise, let's strike the para. -- 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 8 08:40:23 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:10:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA650B7.50903@itforchange.net> Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of communications technologies and whether they support or undermine human rights. > > However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > Meryem's objection to limiting negative references vis a vis rights violation to governmental policies at the national levels alone still remains valid. Why should we not mention as of being particular concern also the acts of corporate entities as well as other actors both at the national and global levels. I have no doubt that that these are some of the most crucial concerns vis a vis peoples rights in the emerging information society. Also have some problem with saying something is threatened by 'internet governance processes' - looking like governance as a category may be problematic vis a vis non-governance, which is a strongly held ideological stance of many which I find very problematic. Practices of 'non-governance' are often at least as dangerous, if not more, and financial crisis should taught this to us clearly. Would prefer to change the above to "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of some actors vis a vis the Internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." parminder > New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's suggestions about rights instruments. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > --------------------------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > * International human rights instruments are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >> >>> Hi Meryem, >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>> enough. >>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>> policies at different levels. >>>> >>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>> sweepingly totalizing. >>> >> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> to you and Mc Tim? >> > > Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > misunderstanding. > > Cheers, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Tue Sep 8 08:47:39 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:47:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the national level." --c.a. Meryem Marzouki wrote: > This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > Best, > Meryem > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> Hi all >> >> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in >> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations >> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >> human rights. >> >> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: >> >> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the >> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >> >> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >> suggestions about rights instruments. >> >> Thanks, >> Lisa >> >> --------------------------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the >> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >> these opportunities. >> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. >> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >> in the Internet era as before. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It >> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding >> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states >> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration >> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >> principles >> >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> >>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >>> >>>> Hi Meryem, >>>> >>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>>> >>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>>> enough. >>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>>> policies at different levels. >>>> >>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>>> sweepingly totalizing. >>> >>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >>> to you and Mc Tim? >> >> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >> misunderstanding. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 09:06:38 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:06:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA version. rgds, McTim On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > national level." > > --c.a. > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >>> culprits is an important one.  Companies are obviously involved in >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >>> which can limit access to information and expression.  Organisations >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >>> human rights. >>> >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead.  How about: >>> >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >>> >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >>> suggestions about rights instruments. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lisa >>> >>> --------------------------------------- >>> >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >>> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >>> rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >>> at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: >>> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >>> these opportunities. >>> *    International human rights instruments are legally binding. >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >>> in the Internet era as before. >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value.  It >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >>> and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >>> expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >>> as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >>> open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >>> experts. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >>> principles >>> >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hi Meryem, >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>>>> enough. >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>>>> policies at different levels. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>>>> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. >>>> >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >>>> to you and Mc Tim? >>> >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >>> misunderstanding. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >>> >>> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Sep 8 09:11:55 2009 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:11:55 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi, thank you for the spirited discussion so far. May I just suggest a slightly different language for § 3, which highlights the international human rights acquis (new language between asterisks) * International human rights ***, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.*** ***The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation*** of ***states*** having ratified these instruments ***to respect, protect, implement*** the human rights ***of their citizens***. As Parminder: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of ***a growing number of divergent actors***, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Kind regards Matthias -- Matthias C. Kettemann Harvard LL.M. Class of 2010 29 Garden St, Apt # 604 Cambridge, MA 02138, USA M | +1 617 229 9015 E | mkettemann at llm10.law.harvard.edu Skype | matthiaskettemann Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] Gesendet: Di 08.09.2009 13:33 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. Best, Meryem Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > Hi all > > I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > which can limit access to information and expression. > Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological > design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact > on the nature of communications technologies and whether they > support or undermine human rights. > > However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > > New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > suggestions about rights instruments. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > --------------------------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > rights and associated principles have received very little > attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > in the Internet era as before. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for > addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with > security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to > freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations > of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive > the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation > of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they > deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy > principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >>> Hi Meryem, >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>> enough. >>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>> policies at different levels. >>> >>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>> sweepingly totalizing. >> >> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> to you and Mc Tim? > > Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > misunderstanding. > > Cheers, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 10:32:06 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:32:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0909080732p576182f9x1525e6a799b1d03c@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Adam, I have kenya, tanzania and uganda dates but not the organizers and a web page. Best Bertrand On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place >>> in the wider Africa, >>> >> >> >> I am reading this mail at the East African IGF. There is another >> coming up for West Africa soon. >> >> Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. >> >> Pls don't assume hat silence means that nothing is happening. >> >> > > and the East Africa IGF is the outcome of national IGF processes in > Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. > > Bertrand, I'll try to get information for you about Burundi and Rwanda. > > Adam > > > -- >> 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 Sep 8 12:37:03 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Past Wrongs - Redress - respectful human interface Message-ID: <651519.57446.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Woman's day. Childrens day.   Black man in the West. Caste system in the East. Native American Indian,(No.pole to So. pole). Laborer.   I am a priviledged White Male American. I am a respectful yet not too old 51 years. My skin and high cheek bones make me quite acceptable in most surroundings. Yet as a child I was often derided because I was illigitimate, white in a non-white environment and worst of all I was very smart and loved to learn & read.   As we move forward in Internet Governance it is my hope that we eschew reverse discrimination to make things better and to not go backwards.  But we instead pay special attention to these special days in honor of those who suffered for us. And that we do this in order that the past is not forgotten and that the lessons of hatred and bias are not ignored. Let us not be ColorBlind but instead ColorGlorious. Never negative and retaliatory but always positive and a raising up not tearing down.   My five 20 something children already are forgetting and it is my duty to remind and teach them. Not just to remember and not repeat but to blast into the future with firm conviction and complete abandon and a total willingness not to sit idle. If we cloister and form groups like IGFs and NCUCs let us always strive for acceptance and equality. With the birth of my youngest next year I will never miss the chance to explain the beauty of diversity and I hope we here can promote that concept in Internet Governance. My country and the UN do it by have special "Days" as above. -------------- 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 Tue Sep 8 12:38:59 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:38:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bertrand, We had the IG *Pulong *("*pulong*" is a Tagalog word that means "*forum*" or "*meeting*") last February 24, 2009 in Manila during the APNIC 27 and organized by ISOC Philippines Chapter. But let me sum up the event below: - Title of the event - Internet Governance Pulong (IGP) - Date - February 24, 2009 - Location - Hotel Sofitel, Manila, Philippines - Main organizers - ISOC Philippines Chapter, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) 27, Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT 2009) - Address of the web site where more information can be found - http://isoc.ph/portal/2009/04/isoc-philippines-at-apnic-27-meeting/ ISOC PH will have an information campaign on IGF and Remote Participation and we are trying to "insert" it in some local ICT conventions/conferences. I cannot give you the exact details yet because we are still planning and finalizing with other organizers. But I can update you on this later on. Thanks! Regards, Charity G. Embley Chairperson- IGF Working Group, ISOC Philippines On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at > national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the > IGF. > > I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. > Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard > about with, if possible, the following information : > > - Title of the event > - Date > - Location > - Main organizers > - Address of the web site where more information can be found > > This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, > and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > > Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa > regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, > Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. > > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 8 12:44:03 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <856351.15327.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> My concurrence in McTims remarks.   I believe in this situation an asterik is appropriate. Then not rewording or redrafting but simply linking to this thread.  When good people publicly air their concerns and have respectful debate on an issue it should be shared. It also may be repeated but understanding will be better with a bit of history.   We cannot ignore that some differences exist between countries and rights. It is not helpful to always criticize or attack.  But it is never helpful to pretend that it does not exist. --- On Tue, 9/8/09, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 1:06 PM This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA version. rgds, McTim On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > national level." > > --c.a. > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >>> culprits is an important one.  Companies are obviously involved in >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >>> which can limit access to information and expression.  Organisations >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >>> human rights. >>> >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead.  How about: >>> >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >>> >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >>> suggestions about rights instruments. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lisa >>> >>> --------------------------------------- >>> >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >>> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >>> rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >>> at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: >>> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >>> these opportunities. >>> *    International human rights instruments are legally binding. >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >>> in the Internet era as before. >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value.  It >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >>> and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >>> expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >>> as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >>> open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >>> experts. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >>> principles >>> >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hi Meryem, >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>>>> enough. >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>>>> policies at different levels. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>>>> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. >>>> >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >>>> to you and Mc Tim? >>> >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >>> misunderstanding. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >>> >>> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 8 19:02:10 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:02:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Message-ID: <18805727.1252450931086.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 19:52:07 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:52:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] Important: webcast trial for Open Consultations Tomorrow (13:00 GMT) Message-ID: Dear all, I forward an invitation from the IGF Secretariat. As you know the next Open Consultations will take place on 16 and 17/09, in Geneva. *The Secretariat will be testing the webcast of the Open Consultations tomorrow* (Wednesday, Sep. 09) throughout the day. They would like as many people as possible to *connect at the same time, 13:00 GMT* (15:00 Geneva time), so they will be able to test the robustness of the system. The link is: http://www.ebu.ch/en/tools/webcam/ Note: installation of Real Player is required. Everybody who takes part in the trial can send feedback to igf at unog.ch Our participation is very important to improve the quality of the webcast in future events. Please forward this message to your contacts that may be interested. Best wishes! Marilia Maciel Remote Participation Working Group Original message: We are testing the webcasting facilities for the September meeting at the EBU and we would like stress test it. It will be live all day tomorrow and we would like as many people as possible to visit the site at 3pm Geneva time to see if it can take many connections. Unfortunately, you do need realplayer to view the webcast which can be downloaded at http://www.real.com/ the link to the trail webcast is : http://www.ebu.ch/en/tools/webcam/ Please tell as many people as you can Thanks for your help. -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- 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 Tue Sep 8 22:48:20 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:18:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> Hi all, I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word "divergent", so that it reads: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Cheers, Anja On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: > This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I > find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA > version. > > rgds, > McTim > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > > national level." > > > > --c.a. > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > >> Best, > >> Meryem > >> > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > >>> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > >>> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations > >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard > >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of > >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine > >>> human rights. > >>> > >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > >>> > >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > >>> > >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > >>> suggestions about rights instruments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > >>> > >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > >>> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention > >>> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > >>> > >>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > >>> these opportunities. > >>> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > >>> in the Internet era as before. > >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > >>> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing > >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > >>> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights > >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of > >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve > >>> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental > >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an > >>> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main > >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all > >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > >>> experts. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > >>> principles > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Meryem, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on > >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be > >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current > >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these > >>>>>> policies at different levels. > >>>>> > >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > >>>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. > >>>> > >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > >>>> to you and Mc Tim? > >>> > >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > >>> misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 hempalshrestha at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 01:29:21 2009 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:14:21 +0545 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Here also in Nepal we have an informal IGF forum. This forum had and one day interaction program on IG last year jointly organized with the High Level commission for IT, Govt of Nepal. This is a group of people who cut across various sector and organization in Nepal, including private companies, development organization, media organization and ISPs. Also, most of these members are part of the ISOC Nepal initiative also Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Hi Bertrand, > > We had the IG *Pulong *("*pulong*" is a Tagalog word that means "*forum*" > or "*meeting*") last February 24, 2009 in Manila during the APNIC 27 and > organized by ISOC Philippines Chapter. But let me sum up the event below: > > > - Title of the event - Internet Governance Pulong (IGP) > - Date - February 24, 2009 > - Location - Hotel Sofitel, Manila, Philippines > - Main organizers - ISOC Philippines Chapter, Asia Pacific Network > Information Centre (APNIC) 27, Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on > Operational Technologies (APRICOT 2009) > - Address of the web site where more information can be found - > http://isoc.ph/portal/2009/04/isoc-philippines-at-apnic-27-meeting/ > > ISOC PH will have an information campaign on IGF and Remote Participation > and we are trying to "insert" it in some local ICT conventions/conferences. > I cannot give you the exact details yet because we are still planning and > finalizing with other organizers. But I can update you on this later on. > > Thanks! > > Regards, > Charity G. Embley > Chairperson- IGF Working Group, ISOC Philippines > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at >> national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the >> IGF. >> >> I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. >> Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard >> about with, if possible, the following information : >> >> - Title of the event >> - Date >> - Location >> - Main organizers >> - Address of the web site where more information can be found >> >> This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, >> and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. >> >> Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West >> Africa regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, >> Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to >> duplicate. >> >> Thank you in advance for your help. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >> Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Wed Sep 9 05:20:28 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:20:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Thanks for everyone's constructive comments on the statement. I've pasted a new version (4) below. I guess we should try to move to consensus on this soon, so please could everyone make any further comments and edits by 09.00 CET tomorrow (Thursday 9th September). We can then send out a call for consensus to ask if we all support the statement (and ask the DCs), and get it submitted on Friday (if that's not too late?). All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V4). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 09 September 2009 03:48 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all, I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word "divergent", so that it reads: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Cheers, Anja On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: > This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I > find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA > version. > > rgds, > McTim > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > > national level." > > > > --c.a. > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > >> Best, > >> Meryem > >> > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > >>> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > >>> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations > >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard > >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of > >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine > >>> human rights. > >>> > >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > >>> > >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > >>> > >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > >>> suggestions about rights instruments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > >>> > >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > >>> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention > >>> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > >>> > >>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > >>> these opportunities. > >>> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > >>> in the Internet era as before. > >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > >>> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing > >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > >>> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights > >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of > >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve > >>> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental > >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an > >>> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main > >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all > >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > >>> experts. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > >>> principles > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Meryem, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on > >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be > >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current > >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these > >>>>>> policies at different levels. > >>>>> > >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > >>>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. > >>>> > >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > >>>> to you and Mc Tim? > >>> > >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > >>> misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 dcogburn at syr.edu Wed Sep 9 06:15:24 2009 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:15:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter Amendment Vote Message-ID: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Dear IGC Colleagues, As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). Cheers, Derrick Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 9 06:28:46 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Message-ID: Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent voted yet- Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may not pass. Participation is really needed here! Thanks, Ian Peter On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: > Dear IGC Colleagues, > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). > > Cheers, > Derrick > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Syracuse University > http://cotelco.syr.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 siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Wed Sep 9 06:32:06 2009 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:32:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Ian, I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for voting or no? Best Siranush Vardanyan Armenia > Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 > From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter > > Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent > voted yet- > > Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just > leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who > received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 > seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may > not pass. Participation is really needed here! > > Thanks, > > > Ian Peter > > > > > On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: > > > Dear IGC Colleagues, > > > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have > > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active > > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. > > > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not > > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have > > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). > > > > Cheers, > > Derrick > > > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > > Syracuse University > > http://cotelco.syr.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 _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photo-gallery-edit.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 siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Wed Sep 9 06:33:22 2009 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:33:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Message-ID: Sorry for spamming, I didn't mean to send this e-mail to the list, this was just for Ian. Thanks for understanding Siranush From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:32:06 +0000 Subject: RE: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter Dear Ian, I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for voting or no? Best Siranush Vardanyan Armenia > Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 > From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter > > Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent > voted yet- > > Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just > leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who > received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 > seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may > not pass. Participation is really needed here! > > Thanks, > > > Ian Peter > > > > > On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: > > > Dear IGC Colleagues, > > > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have > > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active > > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. > > > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not > > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have > > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). > > > > Cheers, > > Derrick > > > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > > Syracuse University > > http://cotelco.syr.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 With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. _________________________________________________________________ Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 9 06:37:49 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:37:49 +1000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Siranush, let me follow that up. You are on the list of those eligible to vote, and the email address of this posting is registered to receive a ballot. I¹ll follow that up and get back to you off list. On 9/09/09 8:32 PM, "Siranush Vardanyan" wrote: > Dear Ian, > > I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus > members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for > voting or no? > > Best > > Siranush Vardanyan > Armenia > >> > Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 >> > From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter >> > >> > Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent >> > voted yet- >> > >> > Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just >> > leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who >> > received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 >> > seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may >> > not pass. Participation is really needed here! >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: >> > >>> > > Dear IGC Colleagues, >>> > > >>> > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have >>> > > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active >>> > > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. >>> > > >>> > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not >>> > > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have >>> > > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). >>> > > >>> > > Cheers, >>> > > Derrick >>> > > >>> > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >>> > > Syracuse University >>> > > http://cotelco.syr.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 > > > With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. > y-edit.aspx> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 06:40:12 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:40:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: I would suggest that the last paragraph should be changed in the second line to read "... so that these standards" rather than "... so that they" as below. The requirements of grammar allow you to add emphasis :-) Deirdre > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that these standards are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. 2009/9/9 Lisa Horner : > Hi all > > Thanks for everyone's constructive comments on the statement.  I've pasted a new version (4) below.  I guess we should try to move to consensus on this soon, so please could everyone make any further comments and edits by 09.00 CET tomorrow (Thursday 9th September).  We can then send out a call for consensus to ask if we all support the statement (and ask the DCs), and get it submitted on Friday (if that's not too late?). > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V4). > >  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > > •       Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > •       The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > •       International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > •       The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that also has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 09 September 2009 03:48 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Hi all, > > I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word > "divergent", so that it reads: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by > actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels." > > Cheers, > Anja > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: >> This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I >> find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA >> version. >> >> rgds, >> McTim >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular >> > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the >> > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the >> > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the >> > national level." >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. >> >> Best, >> >> Meryem >> >> >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> >> >> >>> Hi all >> >>> >> >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >> >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >> >>> culprits is an important one.  Companies are obviously involved in >> >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >> >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >> >>> which can limit access to information and expression.  Organisations >> >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >> >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >> >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >> >>> human rights. >> >>> >> >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >> >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >> >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead.  How about: >> >>> >> >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >> >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >> >>> >> >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >> >>> suggestions about rights instruments. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Lisa >> >>> >> >>> --------------------------------------- >> >>> >> >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >> >>> >> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >> >>> rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >> >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >> >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >> >>> at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: >> >>> >> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >> >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >> >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >> >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >> >>> these opportunities. >> >>> *    International human rights instruments are legally binding. >> >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >> >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >> >>> in the Internet era as before. >> >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value.  It >> >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >> >>> and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding >> >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >> >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >> >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >> >>> expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states >> >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >> >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >>> >> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >> >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >> >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >> >>> as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration >> >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >> >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >> >>> open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >> >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >> >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >> >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >> >>> experts. >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >> >>> principles >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi Meryem, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >> >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >> >>>>>> enough. >> >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >> >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >> >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >> >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >> >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >> >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >> >>>>>> policies at different levels. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> >>>>> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest >> >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >> >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >> >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >> >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. >> >>>> >> >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> >>>> to you and Mc Tim? >> >>> >> >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >> >>> misunderstanding. >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> >> >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> >> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >> >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >> >>> >> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >>> >> >>> http://www.eset.com >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >> >>> >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > -- “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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Wed Sep 9 08:37:39 2009 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:37:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <509555.73436.qm@web27807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Adam and all, I am pleased to attend the EA-IGF even if I come late, It was pleasure to see you there. About Burundi National IGF,we made it at the dates of 1-2 Sept 2009 and was among organizers,I ll write to Bertrand about its summary. Hope to find you again , Jean-Yves In Peace, GATETE Jean-Yves --- En date de : Mar 8.9.09, Adam Peake a écrit : De: Adam Peake Objet: Re: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mardi 8 Septembre 2009, 13h56 >On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>  Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place >>  in the wider Africa, > > >I am reading this mail at the East African IGF.  There is another >coming up for West Africa soon. > >Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. > >Pls don't assume hat silence means  that nothing is happening. > and the East Africa IGF is the outcome of national IGF processes in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Bertrand, I'll try to get information for you about Burundi and Rwanda. Adam >-- >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Sep 9 09:58:23 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:58:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Dear Lisa, please find enclosed your draft statement, which I basically appreciate very much, with some suggestions from my side however based on the 3rd version, also in track mode. In particular, am not clear what the last sentence means in practice. DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to the human rights dimension of the issues discussed. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, education or the right to development are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that some governments are pursuing at the national level regarding access to the internet. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. * International human rights instruments are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, offline and in the Internet. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. (?) Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. September 2009 11:20 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all Thanks for everyone's constructive comments on the statement. I've pasted a new version (4) below. I guess we should try to move to consensus on this soon, so please could everyone make any further comments and edits by 09.00 CET tomorrow (Thursday 9th September). We can then send out a call for consensus to ask if we all support the statement (and ask the DCs), and get it submitted on Friday (if that's not too late?). All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V4). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 09 September 2009 03:48 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all, I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word "divergent", so that it reads: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Cheers, Anja On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: > This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I > find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA > version. > > rgds, > McTim > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > > national level." > > > > --c.a. > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > >> Best, > >> Meryem > >> > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > >>> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > >>> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations > >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard > >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of > >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine > >>> human rights. > >>> > >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > >>> > >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > >>> > >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > >>> suggestions about rights instruments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > >>> > >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > >>> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention > >>> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > >>> > >>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > >>> these opportunities. > >>> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > >>> in the Internet era as before. > >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > >>> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing > >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > >>> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights > >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of > >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve > >>> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental > >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an > >>> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main > >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all > >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > >>> experts. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > >>> principles > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Meryem, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on > >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be > >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current > >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these > >>>>>> policies at different levels. > >>>>> > >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > >>>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. > >>>> > >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > >>>> to you and Mc Tim? > >>> > >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > >>> misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 STATEMENT suggestions Benedek (9 9 ).doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: DRAFT STATEMENT suggestions Benedek (9 9 ).doc URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 9 12:10:50 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:10:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA7D38A.7040505@cafonso.ca> I did not receive any ballot either. --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Siranush, let me follow that up. You are on the list of those eligible to > vote, and the email address of this posting is registered to receive a > ballot. > > I¹ll follow that up and get back to you off list. > > > On 9/09/09 8:32 PM, "Siranush Vardanyan" > wrote: > > >> Dear Ian, >> >> I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus >> members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for >> voting or no? >> >> Best >> >> Siranush Vardanyan >> Armenia >> >> >>>> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 >>>> From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter >>>> >>>> Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent >>>> voted yet- >>>> >>>> Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just >>>> leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who >>>> received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 >>>> seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may >>>> not pass. Participation is really needed here! >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Dear IGC Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have >>>>>> received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active >>>>>> until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not >>>>>> yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have >>>>>> received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Derrick >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >>>>>> Syracuse University >>>>>> http://cotelco.syr.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 >>>> >> With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. >> > y-edit.aspx> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 9 10:56:52 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:56:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA7C234.7010201@cafonso.ca> Tried to communicate with Ian in a personal message but my email was refused. I did not receive any ballot either. --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Siranush, let me follow that up. You are on the list of those eligible to > vote, and the email address of this posting is registered to receive a > ballot. > > I¹ll follow that up and get back to you off list. > > > On 9/09/09 8:32 PM, "Siranush Vardanyan" > wrote: > > >> Dear Ian, >> >> I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus >> members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for >> voting or no? >> >> Best >> >> Siranush Vardanyan >> Armenia >> >> >>>> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 >>>> From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter >>>> >>>> Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent >>>> voted yet- >>>> >>>> Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just >>>> leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who >>>> received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 >>>> seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may >>>> not pass. Participation is really needed here! >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Dear IGC Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have >>>>>> received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active >>>>>> until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not >>>>>> yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have >>>>>> received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Derrick >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >>>>>> Syracuse University >>>>>> http://cotelco.syr.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 >>>> >> With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. >> > y-edit.aspx> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 9 12:37:58 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:37:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > • Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > • The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 9 12:56:29 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:56:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 9 13:27:15 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:27:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909091027i15e20755g954841bd2e69d456@mail.gmail.com> Yes, the "legally binding" frame is indeed inserted in the latest draft, you're correct, but nearly all of the other words I pointed as problematic because they suggest or infer optional-ity still remain in the latest draft. I'm suggesting a fix, if you're interested, that one can apply for themselves, in the last paragraph of this short reply. I know that the drafters of this statement "get it", but documents are best interpreted for the raw text they contain (in the abstract), and if, in a manner of speaking, "binding human rights" lack the modest power to revise the wording of the other phrases in the statement that still remain unchanged, then one might infer that they're not really binding, they're more like "standards" "guidelines" and such that can be freely ignored where deemed desirable. (and these latter terms are still used in the statement, and they sound like optional concepts to me, like informal "rules of thumb"). Even the term in the latest draft "gives the required attention to the human rights framework" is easily avoided by reasoning that the "attention due" in this case is precisely nothing. (Though I very highly suspect that's not at all the intent of the drafters) If you see my point, then I suppose anyone can take the "binding" terms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, and use them as a test on the other phrases in the document to see if they all measure up. These are words like "inalienable" "nonderogable" "inviolable", and so on. This constellation of words or concepts will help to rein in the remaining loose inferences that are available to someone not eager to apply human rights and result in a strong, tightly knit document. These loose inferences, not one of them a part of the drafter's intent, are what the opponent lawyers of human rights in some particular context will seize on as ambiguities or holes or escape hatches for what you are actually, I think, wishing to COMMAND (in the name of the law, of course). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/9/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> 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 >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 9 14:22:24 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's  regards Shaila     DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. thanks Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!                                     ________________________________ From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF.  This is problematic as: > *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF IBR edits to V from SM 9-9-09 DRAFT STATEMENT.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29184 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Sep 9 14:32:40 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN...  as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!! shaila Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's  regards Shaila     DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. thanks Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!                                     ________________________________ From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF.  This is problematic as: > *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 9 14:46:46 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:16:46 -0430 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA7F816.6090600@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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 9 15:06:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <4AA7F816.6090600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <840113.91469.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Substantive changes and including what amount to demands in the "Last Second" flurry of activity in creating a document is bad governance.  There are grammatical and spelling and punctuation issues in the document that change meaning.   Your core issues of what do we want this document to accomplish were never settled.  Are you changing a declaration of purpose document now into a demand for Rights document?   Are you now changing a concilliatory tone into a justifiable indignation rant?   Careful what you do with endorsements before and after such changes that effect how affected governments may fund your agenda.   My opinions are clear. I am a fundamentalist purist when it comes to demanding rights.  But I do not seek contributions to fund my agenda. The people that fund me do it because I make them money.  The people that fund your cause do it because they want progress in this area. Are you sure you can make progress by slapping governments in their face and drawing lines in the sand.   I think protests and ranters are better left out of your document. --- On Wed, 9/9/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 6:46 PM Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out unequivocally on this topic. I agree. Best, Ginger shaila mistry wrote: Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN...  as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!! shaila     Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's  regards Shaila     DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. thanks Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!                                      From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF.  This is problematic as: > *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Sep 9 15:39:31 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Wolfgang Benedek) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:39:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Lisa, I'm fine, also with the latest version, fearing only it is getting too complex to have much impact. See You soon, Wolfgang Am 09.09.09 18:56 schrieb "Lisa Horner" unter : > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> 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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 9 16:40:11 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:40:11 -0400 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <4AA7F816.6090600@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA7F816.6090600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050909091340u7725157ew35c2768c42173933@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger and all: Thanks much for sending this statement out (*process*) and for all the good thought and substantive work (*merits*) that went into it. I'd like to look at "The Four Freedoms" which are often cited internationally though penned in a national context (Pres. F. D. Roosevelt) and see how such virtual gold standards fan out to the Rights , Responsibilities, and Principles now sought, claimed, elucidated, and even if partially - achieved.. Freedom of Speech and Expression Freedom of Religion (or Belief Systems) Freedom from Want Freedom from Fear. Hope there are 'takers on this'; With warm regards, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.) for i.d. here: Respectful Interfaces Programme, Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N., World Education Fellowship. Law; Computing; Humanities; cyberspace ARPANet forward. On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft > (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out > unequivocally on this topic. > > I agree. > Best, Ginger > > shaila mistry wrote: > > Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not > straighten..glad I spotted this !!! > shaila > > > > Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. > > Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back > and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. > > I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested > changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the > statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can > present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. > > I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut > and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes > are tracked.Also corrected some typo's > > regards > > Shaila > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority > > to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda stronglyreaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, despite this human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights > implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human > rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement with > the > organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines > and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. > > The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > thanks > Shaila > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > * > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Lisa Horner > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why > > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments > > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure > > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about > > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we > > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive > > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of > > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of > > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement > > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in > > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as > > guidance for session organizers? > > > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for > > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to > > incorporate into amendments. > > > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > -------------------- > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in > > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda > > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but > > human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention > > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are > > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human > > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It > > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how > > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and > > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both > > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed > > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should > > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, > > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to > > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to > > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and > > experts. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > > To: governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with > > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft > > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to > > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for > > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of > > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > > > Cheers, > > Anja > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 9 17:57:43 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:57:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <24625263.1252533463772.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Carlos and all, Closed door meetings go on all the time on Intranets, some for good reasons and some not, meaning that if public policy issues regarding the Internet are part of the subject matter it would seem more reasonable that those meetings should be pre announced, open to the public, and at a minimum avaliable for public comment before and after the fact. Unfortunately there are some stakeholders that strongly disagree with such a principal. This is unfortunate as such an attitude leads only to distrust, and rightly so. Certainly ICANN has been a catalist for breading such distrust in such a manner accordingly. It now seems that the NCUC is making the same "Noises" in the very same direction internally, while outwardly professing the opposite. Quite a principal paradox, eh? -----Original Message----- >From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >Sent: Sep 5, 2009 6:33 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Milton L Mueller >Cc: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > >It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? > >--c.a. > >Milton L Mueller wrote: >> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems incoherent to me. >> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >> >> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... >> >> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Wed Sep 9 18:07:43 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:07:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <18370753.1252534063821.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Avri and all, There are no "Gods" as referred below, never have been. Google's search engine is unique in it's own right, but such does not make it a Internet "God" or "God like" in any fashion. Google's search engine does violate searchers PII, and that is and has been documented so many times I don't believe I can recall the actual number. As such, I nor any of our members will use their search engine. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 6, 2009 8:38 AM >To: Governance/IGC List >Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > >On 6 Sep 2009, at 01:51, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka >> Google) >> which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who >> pay for >> certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > >I am not disputing this, but am wondering how you know. Has ths been >documented and proven? I may have missed it, but don't remember >seeing it. > >that is not to say I haven't heard the accusation before, I have just >seen seen the evidence. > >Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to >false gods. it is not the same as saying the secular profit making >search engine. i am not sure whether you meant evil when compared to >the Halal search engine that refers to real gods while google refers >to false gods. or just thought of it as a way to say secular. > >(leaving aside the whole discussion of whether profit is theft and >whether all theft is evil and where gods of good and evil exist >etc ... - all wonderful topics in their opwn right) > >thanks >a. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 Wed Sep 9 18:11:00 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:11:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <30015137.1252534260930.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Deirdre and all, Right! Everyone has the right and opertunity to stick their head in the sand, as it were so they do not hear/read/or have knowledge of some expressed, known, or factual information. They do so at their own risk, and sometimes as a result at the risk of others later accordingly. Ergo it is unwise to intently not listen/read/or make onself self aware as possible. -----Original Message----- >From: Deirdre Williams >Sent: Sep 6, 2009 8:44 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > >Freedom of expression becomes anathema if coupled with compulsion to >"listen". The greatest freedom of all is the freedom to be selective >about what one "hears". It's such a great freedom that I don't think >anyone bothers to write it down, and it's often forgotten in this type >of discussion. Without it "freedom of expression" becomes enslavement >of everyone else. >So everyone may have the right of free expression (which presumably >includes the right to categorise things as more or less "Halal", and >indeed the right to create search engines of all kinds), just so long >as everyone retains the right to withhold attention, and not to use >the search engine if that is their choice. >Deirdre > >2009/9/6 Tijani BEN JEMAA : >> Thank you Ian. You are 100% right. It was not a single case. The distortion >> is general. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Vice Président de la CIC >> Fédération Mondiale des Organisation d'Ingénieurs >> Tél : + 216 98 330 114 >> Fax : + 216 70 860 861 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Envoyé : dimanche 6 septembre 2009 06:52 >> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso >> Objet : Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) >> which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for >> certain types of advertising services though the same company. >> >> But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on >> search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results >> reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying >> news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or >> political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a >> part in the results reported? >> >> We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these >> distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... >> >> >> On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >>> are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >>> grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >>> closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale >> seems >>>> incoherent to me. >>>> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict >> itself >>>> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >>>> >>>> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to >> Internet >>>> Governance is not a good idea... >>>> >>>> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 8.5.409 / Base de données virale: 270.13.78/2347 - Date: 09/05/09 >> 05:51:00 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 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 Wed Sep 9 18:27:23 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:27:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong Message-ID: <32436369.1252535243286.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.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 Wed Sep 9 18:29:14 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:29:14 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re: Respectful Interface Message-ID: <10107505.1252535354878.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.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 Wed Sep 9 18:45:00 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:45:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Google Japan To Help Victims of Street View Abuse Message-ID: <7595877.1252536300878.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, See: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/09/06/0152201 And: "After repeated concerns from Japanese citizens over privacy rights violations involving Street View and a probe by Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, http://www.google.co.jp/ Google Japan has announced that http://www.examiner.com/x-16352-Japan-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m9d4-Google-Japan-fights-concerns-about-Street-View it will help victims of Street View photo abuse take action against offending sites. Google Japan said it would send requests to the sites for removal of maliciously used Street View images. It will also potentially block the site from Google's search engine and consider legal action for those sites which ignore or refuse the request. Action to this extent against secondary-use abusers is reportedly a first in relationship to http://www.google.co.jp/help/maps/streetview/ Google's Street View worldwide." About time IMO. After all Google were the originators of this mess... 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 10 04:37:58 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:07:58 +0530 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> Shaila thanks for your edit. However regarding the edited text below >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement with the organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would >like to support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. I much prefer the original, which is >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like >to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. I cant see why or how can IGC be offering experts from the private and public sectors. (In any case, I see any person employed in any private enterprise offering expertise that is purely for public interest, and that is completely detached from the interests of the private entity, as doing so in the capacity of a civil society member.) I also prefer the term 'assistance' to 'volunteer active involvement'. Thanks. parminder shaila mistry wrote: > Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not > straighten..glad I spotted this !!! > shaila > > > > Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. > > Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got > back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. > > I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few > suggested changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to > straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I > just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater > determination.. > > I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have > cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the > changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's > > regards > > Shaila > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority > > to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly > reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, despite this human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights > implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, > globally. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human > rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active > involvement with the > organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines > and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. > > The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > thanks > Shaila > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > ** > ** > * > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Lisa Horner > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com > ] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Lisa > Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner > wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why > > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments > > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure > > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about > > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we > > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive > > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of > > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of > > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement > > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in > > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as > > guidance for session organizers? > > > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for > > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to > > incorporate into amendments. > > > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > -------------------- > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in > > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda > > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but > > human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention > > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are > > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human > > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It > > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how > > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and > > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both > > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed > > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should > > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, > > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to > > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to > > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and > > experts. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org > ] > > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > > To: governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with > > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft > > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to > > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for > > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of > > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > > > Cheers, > > Anja > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Sep 10 04:38:12 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:08:12 +0530 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA8BAF4.30704@itforchange.net> Shaila thanks for your edits. However regarding the edited text below >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement with the organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would >like to support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. I much prefer the original, which is >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like >to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. I cant see why or how can IGC be offering experts from the private and public sectors. (In any case, I see any person employed in any private enterprise offering expertise that is purely for public interest, and that is completely detached from the interests of the private entity, as doing so in the capacity of a civil society member.) I also prefer the term 'assistance' to 'volunteer active involvement'. Thanks. parminder shaila mistry wrote: > Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not > straighten..glad I spotted this !!! > shaila > > > > Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. > > Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got > back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. > > I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few > suggested changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to > straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I > just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater > determination.. > > I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have > cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the > changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's > > regards > > Shaila > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority > > to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly > reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, despite this human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights > implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, > globally. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human > rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active > involvement with the > organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines > and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. > > The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > thanks > Shaila > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > ** > ** > * > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Lisa Horner > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com > ] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Lisa > Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner > wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why > > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments > > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure > > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about > > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we > > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive > > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of > > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of > > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement > > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in > > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as > > guidance for session organizers? > > > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for > > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to > > incorporate into amendments. > > > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > -------------------- > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in > > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda > > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but > > human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention > > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are > > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human > > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It > > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how > > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and > > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both > > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed > > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should > > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, > > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to > > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to > > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and > > experts. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org > ] > > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > > To: governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with > > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft > > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to > > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for > > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of > > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > > > Cheers, > > Anja > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Sep 10 07:16:47 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:16:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909091027i15e20755g954841bd2e69d456@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909091027i15e20755g954841bd2e69d456@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA67@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Paul Whilst human rights are legally binding and inviolable, I do think that the rights "framework" of treaties, covenants and jurisprudence that has built up over the past 60 years can be presented and used as a "positive" tool for making decisions and influencing policy, rather than simply being a case of "negative" compliance. Many people that I've spoken to recently in the government and private sectors have said that they're much more willing to engage with human rights compliance issues when presented in this more positive light. I think coming at it from both directions is important, balancing emphasis on the legally binding and inviolability of human rights with discussions of how human rights can actually help policy makers to make sound and fair decisions. For example, we don't need to start from scratch in discussing how to balance the public interest with individual interest on the internet, as it's already all there in the international human rights framework (which is of course also legally binding). People who were concerned that the legally binding, fundamental aspect of human rights didn't come out strongly enough in the first draft of the statement have indicated that they're now happy with subsequent drafts. So, as it's late in the day now and we have to move for consensus, I hope you don't mind if we leave the statement as it is for now. We can of course continue this discussion on the list. All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 18:27 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Yes, the "legally binding" frame is indeed inserted in the latest draft, you're correct, but nearly all of the other words I pointed as problematic because they suggest or infer optional-ity still remain in the latest draft. I'm suggesting a fix, if you're interested, that one can apply for themselves, in the last paragraph of this short reply. I know that the drafters of this statement "get it", but documents are best interpreted for the raw text they contain (in the abstract), and if, in a manner of speaking, "binding human rights" lack the modest power to revise the wording of the other phrases in the statement that still remain unchanged, then one might infer that they're not really binding, they're more like "standards" "guidelines" and such that can be freely ignored where deemed desirable. (and these latter terms are still used in the statement, and they sound like optional concepts to me, like informal "rules of thumb"). Even the term in the latest draft "gives the required attention to the human rights framework" is easily avoided by reasoning that the "attention due" in this case is precisely nothing. (Though I very highly suspect that's not at all the intent of the drafters) If you see my point, then I suppose anyone can take the "binding" terms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, and use them as a test on the other phrases in the document to see if they all measure up. These are words like "inalienable" "nonderogable" "inviolable", and so on. This constellation of words or concepts will help to rein in the remaining loose inferences that are available to someone not eager to apply human rights and result in a strong, tightly knit document. These loose inferences, not one of them a part of the drafter's intent, are what the opponent lawyers of human rights in some particular context will seize on as ambiguities or holes or escape hatches for what you are actually, I think, wishing to COMMAND (in the name of the law, of course). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/9/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> 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 >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Sep 10 07:18:34 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:18:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -------------- 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 Sep 10 08:30:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <4AA8CFAB.7030203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <671233.75951.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Privately a very dedicated person wrote me this.   (altered a bit to protect the pure)   (((((((...... "this explains your occasional reference to funding... (Theris funding [for many poeple] on this list."  ......".I still think that as Civil Society we should raise the voice that belongs to each of us as individuals, we also should raise our collective voice, if not in a demanding and self-righteous voice, in a straightforward and clear support for HR. If CS is not very strong and clear--who will be? Our counter-part is very clear."........)))))))   I am very proud to be associated with such good and caring people.  Perhaps the best way for this list to be very strong and clear is to make sure those of us who are a bit radical on the issues of HR are never silenced........   -------------- 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 Sep 10 08:56:00 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles, GuidePosts In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA67@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <873580.6309.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Diversity is more than a popular buzz word. Celebrate Diversity is more than a call to honor all who different.  One of the most important factors of diversity is recognizing the good attributes of the different walks of life.       What the hell does this have to do with this thread??  You ask.   Every group and every person contributing hereto has a different "gift", agenda and role to play. AS a group this is a good document. Personally I am well pleased that it became a stronger voice in these last drafts. We must be adamant but not so adamant as to alienate. We must be fervent and strong and steadfast. But we must never bludgeon or force or deride lest we become that which we disdain. Our document should be a beacon and light that others are attracted to, and not a whip used to enslave to a doctrine.   "A caretaker of a good cause must remain vigilante that his banner is not taken up because it is politically correct" ed 2001 --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Lisa Horner wrote: From: Lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 11:16 AM Hi Paul Whilst human rights are legally binding and inviolable, I do think that the rights "framework" of treaties, covenants and jurisprudence that has built up over the past 60 years can be presented and used as a "positive" tool for making decisions and influencing policy, rather than simply being a case of "negative" compliance.  Many people that I've spoken to recently in the government and private sectors have said that they're much more willing to engage with human rights compliance issues when presented in this more positive light.  I think coming at it from both directions is important, balancing emphasis on the legally binding and inviolability of human rights with discussions of how human rights can actually help policy makers to make sound and fair decisions.  For example, we don't need to start from scratch in discussing how to balance the public interest with individual interest on the internet, as it's already all there in the international human rights framework (which is of course also legally binding). People who were concerned that the legally binding, fundamental aspect of human rights didn't come out strongly enough in the first draft of the statement have indicated that they're now happy with subsequent drafts.  So, as it's late in the day now and we have to move for consensus, I hope you don't mind if we leave the statement as it is for now.  We can of course continue this discussion on the list. All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 18:27 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Yes, the "legally binding" frame is indeed inserted in the latest draft, you're correct, but nearly all of the other words I pointed as problematic because they suggest or infer optional-ity still remain in the latest draft. I'm suggesting a fix, if you're interested, that one can apply for themselves, in the last paragraph of this short reply. I know that the drafters of this statement "get it", but documents are best interpreted for the raw text they contain (in the abstract), and if, in a manner of speaking, "binding human rights" lack the modest power to revise the wording of the other phrases in the statement that still remain unchanged, then one might infer that they're not really binding, they're more like "standards" "guidelines" and such that can be freely ignored where deemed desirable. (and these latter terms are still used in the statement, and they sound like optional concepts to me, like informal "rules of thumb"). Even the term in the latest draft "gives the required attention to the human rights framework" is easily avoided by reasoning that the "attention due" in this case is precisely nothing.  (Though I very highly suspect that's not at all the intent of the drafters) If you see my point, then I suppose anyone can take the "binding" terms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, and use them as a test on the other phrases in the document to see if they all measure up.  These are words like "inalienable" "nonderogable" "inviolable", and so on.  This constellation of words or concepts will help to rein in the remaining loose inferences that are available to someone not eager to apply human rights and result in a strong, tightly knit document. These loose inferences, not one of them a part of the drafter's intent, are what the opponent lawyers of human rights in some particular context will seize on as ambiguities or holes or escape hatches for what you are actually, I think, wishing to COMMAND (in the name of the law, of course). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/9/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > >  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far.  This is problematic as: > > *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times.   Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF.  This is problematic as: >> *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> 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 >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI  49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 10 09:00:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <673847.77780.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I concur and consent and endorse wholeheartedly this document   "I may perspire over the details and find fault with a word, but I would gladly die for the principles" --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Lisa Horner wrote: From: Lisa Horner Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 11:18 AM Hi all   We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not.  I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs.   Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you.   Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now.   All the best, Lisa   ------------------------------------------------------------------------   FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call   The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme.           -----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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 09:12:46 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:42:46 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@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 correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 09:23:29 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Dear All [and a hearty *abraço* to those of did the thankless slog] I support and endorse the statement. Regards, Rui 2009/9/10 Lisa Horner > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 10 09:35:45 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:35:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2B863AF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I support and thank the drafters. Lee ________________________________________ From: Rui Correia [correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting Dear All [and a hearty abraço to those of did the thankless slog] I support and endorse the statement. Regards, Rui 2009/9/10 Lisa Horner > Hi all We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Thu Sep 10 09:53:40 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <649829.45486.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Thanks Lisa for once again working on the draft and incorporating my edits. We now have a stronger statement . Parminder , thank you for your observations, I see your point. Yes I support this document regards Shaila Lisa Horner wrote: > >Hi >all > >We’re >now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve >pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you >send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. >I’ll >now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting >read out >at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > >Shaila >– this version includes your edits, apart from >in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope >that’s acceptable to you. > >Thanks >everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a >strong statement now. > >All >the best, >Lisa > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > >>The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >programme for >IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of >human rights >in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >principles >have received too little attention at the IGF so >>far. This is problematic because : > >>* Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are >strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a >growing number >of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at >both >national as well as global levels. > >>* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >knowledge and >common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these >opportunities. >Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious >opportunity >cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > >>* International human rights, as contained in the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >treaties and >other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The >growing role of information and communication technologies has not >changed the >legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to >respect, >protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > >>* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set >of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human >rights >are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, >such as >how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with >the >rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >allows >us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >rights >dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >planning and >implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are >given the >attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include >explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >affect >human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >build an open >and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] >would >like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions >to do >this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing >access to >relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and >future >IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > -------------- 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 Sep 10 09:54:14 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:54:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Off Topic - Access to information: court records and terror watch list data Message-ID: Two items Washington Post, September 6 Why the records of Supreme Court justices should be governed by rules -- not individuals http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502349.html?wpisrc=newsletter Administration Seeks to Keep Terror Watch-List Data Secret http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502240.html?wpisrc=newsletter 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 10:08:29 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: 43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local Message-ID: I respectfully 'Decline' an endorsement. It would not be proper to offer my opinion at this time. You have worked very hard to craft a statement, and worked even harder to work with the List to wordsmith the final edification. I applaud you for endeavoring that task. Respectfully, ykatz ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Sep 10 10:09:12 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:09:12 +0700 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> I agree with this statement and congratulate all who were involved in drafting it. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and opining. Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. Best, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -------------- 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 balbornoz at flacso.org.ec Thu Sep 10 10:21:54 2009 From: balbornoz at flacso.org.ec (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mar=EDa_Bel=E9n_Albornoz?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:21:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006e01ca3222$0c631f60$25295e20$@org.ec> I support and endorse the document. Best regards Belén De: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Septiembre de 2009 8:13 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Asunto: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and opining. Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. Best, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. MailScanner agradece a transtec Computers por su apoyo. -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. For all your IT requirements visit: http://www.transtec.co.uk -------------- 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 Sep 10 12:03:35 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:03:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <701af9f70909100903n3500e538pd61e173d15fa4765@mail.gmail.com> Hi Lisa, I fully support the statement. I would also like to emphasize that as long as the IGF Secretariat does not actively involve the Human Rights Council like it involves UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, UNDP etc, the Internet Rights statements will remain vague, if we even have .01% of participation and support from the Human Rights Council, consider the issue of Internet Rights entering main theme setting and discussion in a much shorter anticipated time period. On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not.  I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I > think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for > IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration > and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the > information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles > have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 javier at funredes.org Thu Sep 10 12:38:01 2009 From: javier at funredes.org (Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pinz=F3n?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:38:01 -0400 (AST) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909100903n3500e538pd61e173d15fa4765@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <701af9f70909100903n3500e538pd61e173d15fa4765@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1393.200.116.231.239.1252600681.squirrel@funredes.org> I endorse the statement. Thanks to Lisa and all people who contribute to build up this consensus. Best, Javier > I fully support the statement. > > I would also like to emphasize that as long as the IGF Secretariat > does not actively involve the Human Rights Council like it involves > UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, UNDP etc, the Internet Rights statements will > remain vague, if we even have .01% of participation and support from > the Human Rights Council, consider the issue of Internet Rights > entering main theme setting and discussion in a much shorter > anticipated time period. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Sep 10 13:46:59 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:16:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <1252604819.4295.41.camel@cis5-laptop> I support and endorse this statement. Thanks to Lisa and all who were involved in drafting it. Anja On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:18 +0100, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message > to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand > over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out > at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s > acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. > The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, > human rights and associated principles have received too little > attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have > ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human > rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human > rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance > issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in > compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. > Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human > rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as > cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of > how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and > the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would > like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity > to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 dave at isoc-mu.org Thu Sep 10 13:47:37 2009 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:47:37 +0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> Message-ID: <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> I endorse this statement and thank all for your tremendous efforts in drafting it. Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and opining. Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. Best, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -------------- 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 graciela at nupef.org.br Thu Sep 10 13:56:50 2009 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:56:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> Message-ID: <4AA93DE2.2080508@nupef.org.br> Hello, I endorse the statement. regards, Graciela Selaimen Dave Kissoondoyal escreveu: > > I endorse this statement and thank all for your tremendous efforts in > drafting it. > > Dave Kissoondoyal > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC > supporting > > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it > and opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their > agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short > discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given > the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a > message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. > I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it > getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in > touch with the DCs. > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s > acceptable to you. > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > All the best, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed > the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite > this, human rights and associated principles have received too > little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and > development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive > policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, > including state and private actors at both national as well as > global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold > human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being > of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that > have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement > the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, > human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on > the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to > derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they > deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and > undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers > of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support > all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From valeriab at apc.org Thu Sep 10 13:58:10 2009 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:58:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> Message-ID: Count me in. I endorse the statement. Thanks to all involved in the drafting. Valeria 2009/9/10 Dave Kissoondoyal > I endorse this statement and thank all for your tremendous efforts in > drafting it. > > > > Dave Kissoondoyal > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC > supporting > > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and > opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement > or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we > had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > All the best, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.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 katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Sep 10 14:01:35 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:01:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> Message-ID: <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> I endorse the statement > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed > the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite > this, human rights and associated principles have received too > little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that > have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement > the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, > human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the > internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and > privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, > the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve > as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open > and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] > would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to > make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Valeria Betancourt > Coordinadora / Coordinator > Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT > Policy Programme > http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio > http://lac.derechos.apc.org > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 14:07:13 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:07:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: I support the statement. Marilia On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Katitza Rodriguez < katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > I endorse the statement > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >> >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >> principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >> far. This is problematic because : >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, >> privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly >> threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of >> actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both >> national as well as global levels. >> >> >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >> >> >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other >> universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role >> of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal >> obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, >> protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >> >> >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are >> therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as >> how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the >> rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should >> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >> build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming >> IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and >> Principles a core theme. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > -- > Valeria Betancourt > Coordinadora / Coordinator > Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy > Programme > > http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio > http://lac.derechos.apc.org > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 14:29:55 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:29:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: I support the statement. Deirdre Williams Saint Lucia 2009/9/10 Marilia Maciel : > I support the statement. > > Marilia > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >> >> I endorse the statement >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >>> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >>> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS >>> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >>> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >>> principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >>> far. This is problematic because : >>> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are >>> strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing >>> number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors >>> at both national as well as global levels. >>> >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >>> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >>> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >>> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >>> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >>> >>> *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal >>> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties >>> and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The >>> growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed >>> the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to >>> respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >>> >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>> standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances >>> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >>> interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are >>> therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as >>> how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the >>> rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the >>> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >>> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >>> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >>> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >>> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should >>> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >>> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >>> build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >>> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >>> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming >>> IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and >>> Principles a core theme. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Valeria Betancourt >> Coordinadora / Coordinator >> Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy >> Programme >> >> http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio >> http://lac.derechos.apc.org >> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for >> Progressive Communications, APC >> http://www.apc.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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center of Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 10 14:51:16 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:51:16 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Off Topic - Access to information: court records Message-ID: <21653069.1252608677114.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Rui and all, Although I agree with this in principal, in practical application it is in the end that people or some person make the decision as to how and what rules apply and why. The key here is to make the rules very specific so as to not allow for overly broad interpratation to lead to a bad decision. -----Original Message----- >From: Rui Correia >Sent: Sep 10, 2009 8:54 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Off Topic - Access to information: court records and terror watch list data > >Two items > >Washington Post, September 6 > >Why the records of Supreme Court justices should be governed by rules >-- not individuals >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502349.html?wpisrc=newsletter > >Administration Seeks to Keep Terror Watch-List Data Secret >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502240.html?wpisrc=newsletter > >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 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 10 14:53:25 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:53:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting Message-ID: <19754005.1252608805199.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.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 Sep 10 15:05:11 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:05:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Fw: [ga] Public Comment and Discussion: Document Publication Operational Policy Message-ID: <357250.1252609512089.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, For those interested, please opine. -----Forwarded Message----- >From: Glen de Saint Géry >Sent: Sep 9, 2009 1:09 AM >To: "ga at gnso.icann.org" >Subject: [ga] Public Comment and Discussion: Document Publication Operational Policy > > >[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08sep09-en.htm >Public Comment and Discussion: Document Publication Operational Policy > >8 September 2009 > >A public comment period has opened today for 30 days on a proposed document publication operational policy for ICANN's international public meetings. > >That policy includes: >A single 15-working-day deadline for documents, including meetings agendas >Best practice guidelines on the production of meeting agendas, cover sheets and executive summaries >Emphasis on the use of plain language and minimised use of jargon >Sections considering the issues of translation, earlier provision of presentations, and reporting on the efficacy of the operational policy >The community is encouraged to respond to the policy online and through email. The results of the comment period will be used to revise the policy, with the expectation that it will be put to the Board for formal approval in time for or at the Seoul meeting in October. > >The Board formally approved at its July meeting a single 15-working-day deadline for all ICANN international public meetings (resolution 2009.07.30.11). At the same time it requested that an operational policy providing fuller details be published for public comment with the Board Public Participation Committee reporting back to the Board with any suggested refinements (resolution 2009.07.30.12). See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-30jul09.htm for more details. > >In addition to the public comment period, the Board Public Participation Committee will be holding a public online session in September to receive additional feedback. > >More details on both can be found below. > >Public Comment Period > >The public comment period will be experimenting with new forum software in an effort to allow for more interaction and discussion between community members. > >vBulletin is a widely used piece of forum software that is a move away from the current static email approach taken by ICANN. You can view the forum online at: https://vbulletin.dev.icann.org/ > >You will need to register to post comments online. Alternatively, email comments will be received at the address: document-deadline-policy at icann.org. > >You can view the draft Document Publication Operational Policy at: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/draft-document-publication-operational-policy-en.pdf [PDF, 148K]. > >Public Participation Committee Public Session > >The Committee will be holding an online session to discussion both the document publication operational policy and broader issues of participation with the community in September (the exact date and time will be announced soon). > >The session will use the Adobe Connect remote participation software that ICANN has been using at its international public meetings and smaller regional meetings over the past few months. > >A simple link will allow you to see and hear the Committee as well as any relevant presentations. You will be able to interact with others in a chatroom, put forward typed questions, as well as virtually raise your hand to be called upon to ask a question using your computer's microphone. > >The session is an experiment in opening up Board Committee work and discussions to the community. The URL of the session will be: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/ppc/ and it will run for 90 minutes. > >You can find more details on the session, which will be updated as information become available on the public participation website at: http://public.icann.org/en/ppc-sep09/. > >Related links > >Document Publication Operational Policy >http://www.icann.org/en/participate/draft-document-publication-operational-policy-en.pdf [PDF, 148K] > >Public comment discussion space >https://vbulletin.dev.icann.org/ > >Public Participation Committee session details >http://public.icann.org/en/ppc-sep09/ > >Public Participation Committee online session >http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/ppc > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > 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 wcurrie at apc.org Thu Sep 10 15:36:56 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:36:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. Willie Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message > to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand > over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out > at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila -- this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's > acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) -- for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. > The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, > human rights and associated principles have received too little > attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have > ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human > rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human > rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance > issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in > compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. > Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human > rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as > cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of > how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and > the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would > like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity > to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- 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 Thu Sep 10 15:45:07 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:45:07 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> Message-ID: Yes from me ­ well done On 11/09/09 5:36 AM, "Willie Currie" wrote: > I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. > > Willie > > Lisa Horner wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all >> >> >> >> We¹re now past the deadline for comments, so I¹ve pasted a final version >> below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to >> say if you support the statement or not. I¹ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian >> to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. >> I¹ll also get in touch with the DCs. >> >> >> >> Shaila ­ this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I >> think Parminder¹s comments made sense. Hope that¹s acceptable to you. >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it¹s a strong statement now. >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> Lisa >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) ­ for consensus call >> >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for >> IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration >> and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the >> information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles >> have received too little attention at the IGF so >> far. This is problematic because : >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, >> privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly >> threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of >> actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both >> national as well as global levels. >> >> >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >> >> >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of >> Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other >> universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of >> information and communication technologies has not changed the legal >> obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect >> and implement the human rights of their citizens. >> >> >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights >> against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition >> to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool >> for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and >> governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights >> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should >> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >> build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF >> in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles >> a core theme. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Sep 10 17:42:20 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:42:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I also give my support and endorsement to this statement. Many thanks to those who drafted the statement. Regards, Charity G.Embley Chairperson - ISOC PH IGF Working Group http://www.isoc.ph/portal On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and > opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement > or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we > had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 10 18:05:57 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:05:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Message-ID: <21965627.1252620357806.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Paul and all, Nicely and with some depth, articulated here Paul. Lets hope that the majority of the IGC recognizes what you have so kindly outlined and can recognize that the rights of individuals over groups, but our good friend Milton may as he has recently, not so kindly recognize same. But hope springs eternal! >:) Like you, as for me upholding human rights especially the rights of individuals has been my sworn duty all of my adult life. Where I find such being obscured, I shall speak out firmly. Where I find same being thwarted, I shall call those whom are responsible out. Where there is little if any doubt of same being violated I have taken up arms and sought to smite them, and will do so if necessary and advantagious again! -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Lehto >Sent: Sep 9, 2009 11:37 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lisa Horner >Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > >In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights >*framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework >with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of >standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes >"guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to >"opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > >All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human >rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word >that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how >mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger >to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case >with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to >be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" >to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the >person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > >The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > >(1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the >rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society >goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their >most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and >respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even >if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and >often deadly quite soon. > >(2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do >in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal >constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as >federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher >than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference >into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as >supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty >ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human >rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's >opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally >applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > >(3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are >nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the >countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty >ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is >free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they >were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > >(4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for >issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are >applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying >principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the >new context. > >(5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact >binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used >in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional >scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a >"holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a >trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on >behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them >wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to >narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to >respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase >"opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is >joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with >the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > >(6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it >exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of >the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on >torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international >law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, >under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases >of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no >defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to >violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. >(See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief >Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles >apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to >the Germans). > >As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right >doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes >in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go >away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in >the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus >perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. >If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual >rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at >Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two >decades. > >In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, >but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold >their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding >them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive >interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > >Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > >On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure >> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little attention >> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >> • Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> • The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and >> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft >> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> 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 >> > > >-- >Paul R Lehto, J.D. >P.O. Box #1 >Ishpeming, MI 49849 >lehto.paul at gmail.com >906-204-4026 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 robin at ipjustice.org Thu Sep 10 19:22:30 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:22:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> Message-ID: <1E5F2F25-A47D-45FF-8902-F38C73BCBEA7@ipjustice.org> I endorse signing the statement also and am very glad that this caucus is taking this issue up with the IGF. Many thanks to the drafters and editors of the statement too. Thank you, Robin On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Willie Currie wrote: > I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. > > Willie > > Lisa Horner wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> >> >> We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final >> version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a >> message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. >> I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it >> getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in >> touch with the DCs. >> >> >> >> Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final >> para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s >> acceptable to you. >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement >> now. >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> Lisa >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> >> >> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >> >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human >> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed >> the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite >> this, human rights and associated principles have received too >> little attention at the IGF so >> far. This is problematic because : >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and >> development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive >> policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, >> including state and private actors at both national as well as >> global levels. >> >> >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >> knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and >> enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold >> human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being >> of peoples, globally. >> >> >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >> treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally >> binding. The growing role of information and communication >> technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that >> have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement >> the human rights of their citizens. >> >> >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set >> of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It >> balances different rights against each other to preserve >> individual and public interest. In addition to its legally >> binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for >> addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with >> security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to >> freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework >> also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other >> stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the >> human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be >> included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF >> sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they >> deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit >> consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect >> human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >> build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and >> undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers >> of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support >> all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines >> and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as >> renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 19:36:04 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:36:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f60909101636k4f4b3a87m5c7a7c5f157565c3@mail.gmail.com> I agree with the proposal. Rgds, Tracy On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and > opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement > or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we > had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 hindenburgo at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 20:09:08 2009 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:09:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ef75b780909101709j4c349f08w81132b5460c1ad29@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone, I support and endorse this document. Regards Hindenburgo 2009/9/10 Ginger Paque > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and > opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement > or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we > had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Sep 10 20:48:30 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:48:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9553FC10-2361-484F-AC53-956A328FE98D@ciroap.org> I also support the statement. Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a > message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. > I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it > getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in > touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s > acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed > the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite > this, human rights and associated principles have received too > little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that > have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement > the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, > human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the > internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and > privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, > the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve > as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open > and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] > would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to > make Rights and Principles a core theme. > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 10 20:57:01 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:27:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <9553FC10-2361-484F-AC53-956A328FE98D@ciroap.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <9553FC10-2361-484F-AC53-956A328FE98D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4AA9A05D.70207@itforchange.net> Yes. Think it is a very well done statement. thanks for those who took time to pull it together. parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I also support the statement. > > > > Lisa Horner wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> >> >> We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final >> version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a >> message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll >> now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting >> read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with >> the DCs. >> >> >> >> Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final >> para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s >> acceptable to you. >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> Lisa >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >> >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. >> The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the >> centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, >> human rights and associated principles have received too little >> attention at the IGF so >> far. This is problematic because : >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development >> are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a >> growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and >> private actors at both national as well as global levels. >> >> >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >> knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and >> enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human >> rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of >> peoples, globally. >> >> >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >> treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally >> binding. The growing role of information and communication >> technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have >> ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the >> human rights of their citizens. >> >> >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human >> rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance >> issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in >> compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. >> Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human >> rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and >> responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the >> human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be >> included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF >> sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve >> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration >> of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open >> and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] >> would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders >> through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see >> this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to >> make Rights and Principles a core theme. >> > > -------------- 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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Thu Sep 10 21:48:39 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:48:39 +0600 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Great work Lisa and colleagues, We endorse the statement. Thanks and best wishes Shahzad Ahmad Bytesforall, Pakistan ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:18 PM Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Sep 10 22:49:08 2009 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:49:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <0b6c01ca328a$708a2de0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Important issue. Good work. I'm proud to add my name to the list of supporters. Thomas Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:18 PM Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 db at dannybutt.net Thu Sep 10 22:56:35 2009 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:56:35 +1200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: I support the statement also - very pleased to see the caucus taking up this platform. Cheers, Danny On 10/09/2009, at 11:18 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a > message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. > I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it > getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in > touch with the DCs. > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s > acceptable to you. > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > All the best, > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed > the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite > this, human rights and associated principles have received too > little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that > have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement > the human rights of their citizens. > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, > human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the > internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and > privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, > the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve > as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open > and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] > would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to > make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com MBE P145, Private Bag 92175 Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand 1142 Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Fri Sep 11 01:18:42 2009 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:18:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I support and endorse this document. Regards Siranush Siranush Vardanyan Armenia Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:42:20 -0500 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; gpaque at gmail.com CC: lisa at global-partners.co.uk Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting Dear All, I also give my support and endorsement to this statement. Many thanks to those who drafted the statement. Regards, Charity G.Embley Chairperson - ISOC PH IGF Working Group http://www.isoc.ph/portal On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and opining. Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. Best, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance _________________________________________________________________ Share your memories online with anyone you want. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photos-share.aspx?tab=1 -------------- 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Fri Sep 11 02:45:33 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:45:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all I support the document and thank the drafters for their patience and constance. Divina ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= Divina Frau-divina Frau-Meigs Professor, media sociology, University Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris (France) Director, master's programme "E-learning and media education engineering" Board Member, ECREA (European Communication Research and Education Asso) Past vice-president, IAMCR (Intl Asso for Media and Communication Research) website: www.medias-matrices.net ^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^=^= > > > Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:42:20 -0500 > From: charityg at diplomacy.edu > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; gpaque at gmail.com > CC: lisa at global-partners.co.uk > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting > > Dear All, > > I also give my support and endorsement to this statement. Many thanks to those > who drafted the statement. > > Regards, > Charity G.Embley > Chairperson - ISOC PH IGF Working Group > http://www.isoc.ph/portal > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and >> opining. >> >> Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or >> disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had >> good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. >> >> We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> Lisa Horner wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> We¹re now past the deadline for comments, so I¹ve pasted a final version >>> below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list >>> to say if you support the statement or not. I¹ll now hand over to Ginger >>> and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning >>> meeting. I¹ll also get in touch with the DCs. >>> >>> Shaila ­ this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I >>> think Parminder¹s comments made sense. Hope that¹s acceptable to you. >>> >>> Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it¹s a strong statement now. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Lisa >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) ­ for consensus call >>> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for >>> IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration >>> and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the >>> information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles >>> have received too little attention at the IGF so >>> far. This is problematic because : >>> >>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, >>> privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly >>> threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of >>> actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both >>> national as well as global levels. >>> >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >>> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >>> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >>> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >>> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >>> >>> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration >>> of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other >>> universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role >>> of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal >>> obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, >>> protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >>> >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >>> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >>> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are >>> therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as >>> how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the >>> rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >>> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >>> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >>> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >>> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >>> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should >>> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >>> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >>> build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >>> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >>> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming >>> IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and >>> Principles a core theme. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want. > .aspx?tab=1> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Sep 11 03:43:14 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:43:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supportingrights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Hi, I support the statement. Thanks all for your patience! Best, Meryem Le 10/9/2009, "Lisa Horner" a écrit: >Hi all > > > >We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version >below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the >list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to >Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF >planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > >Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para >as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to >you. > > > >Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. > > > >All the best, > >Lisa > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call > > >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and >associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >far. This is problematic because : > >* Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are >strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing >number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private >actors at both national as well as global levels. > > >* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and >common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these >opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a >serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > >* International human rights, as contained in the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally >binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies >has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these >instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their >citizens. > > >* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights >are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, >such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance >with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating >the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework >also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other >stakeholders. > >The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human >rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. >This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and >national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive >policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The >Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the >organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to >support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines >and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as >renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Sep 11 04:55:34 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:55:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supportingrights and principles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support the statement, nicely done. Bill On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi, > > I support the statement. Thanks all for your patience! > Best, > Meryem > > Le 10/9/2009, "Lisa Horner" a écrit: > >> Hi all >> >> >> >> We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final >> version >> below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the >> list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand >> over to >> Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at >> the IGF >> planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. >> >> >> >> Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final >> para >> as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable >> to >> you. >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement >> now. >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> Lisa >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call >> >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme >> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of >> human >> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and >> associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF >> so >> far. This is problematic because : >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development >> are >> strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a >> growing >> number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private >> actors at both national as well as global levels. >> >> >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> advancing >> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and >> common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these >> opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights >> implies a >> serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >> >> >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >> treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally >> binding. The growing role of information and communication >> technologies >> has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified >> these >> instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of >> their >> citizens. >> >> >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human >> rights >> are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance >> issues, >> such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in >> compliance >> with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides >> stating >> the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework >> also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other >> stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the >> human >> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included >> in the >> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human >> rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. >> This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional >> and >> national policies affect human rights, and the development of >> positive >> policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for >> all. The >> Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the >> organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant >> guidelines >> and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as >> renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Sep 11 05:02:26 2009 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:02:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC In-Reply-To: References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <20090911090226.GB31544@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:43:14AM +0100, Meryem Marzouki (marzouki at ras.eu.org) wrote: > I support the statement. Likewise. Well done! -- Tapani Tarvainen Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Fri Sep 11 07:43:51 2009 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:43:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC In-Reply-To: References: <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> Message-ID: <20090911114429.65AFD67823@smtp1.electricembers.net> I support the statement. Thanks to all for their hard work and patience. Best regards, Hakik At 08:45 PM 9/10/2009, Ian Peter wrote: >Yes from me – well done > > >On 11/09/09 5:36 AM, "Willie Currie" wrote: > >I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. > >Willie > >Lisa Horner wrote: > > > >Hi all > > > >We’re now past the deadline for comments, so >I’ve pasted a final version below for the >consensus call. Please could you send a message >to the list to say if you support the statement >or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to >finalise and coordinate it getting read out at >the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > >Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart >from in the final para as I think Parminder’s >comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > >Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > >All the best, > >Lisa > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their >request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt >gives greater priority to human rights. The >WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly >reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the >information society. Despite this, human rights >and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >far. This is problematic because : > >* Fundamental human rights such as the rights >to freedom of expression, privacy, civic >participation, education and development are >strongly threatened by the actions and >restrictive policies of a growing number of >actors vis a vis the internet, including state >and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > >* The internet presents new opportunities for >upholding and advancing human rights, for >example through enhancing access to knowledge >and common resources. It is vital that we build >on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring >these avenues to uphold human rights implies a >serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > >* International human rights, as contained in >the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and >confirmed by the core human rights treaties and >other universal human rights instruments, are >legally binding. The growing role of >information and communication technologies has >not changed the legal obligation of states that >have ratified these instruments to respect, >protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > >* The human rights framework is an >internationally agreed set of standards that has >practical as well as ethical value. It balances >different rights against each other to preserve >individual and public interest. In addition to >its legally binding implications, human rights >are therefore a useful tool for addressing >internet governance issues, such as how to deal >with security concerns on the internet in >compliance with the rights to freedom of >expression and privacy. Besides stating the >obligations of states and governments, the human >rights framework also allows us to derive the >rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned >DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all >internet governance issues to be included in the >planning and implementation of all future IGF >sessions, so that human rights are given the >attention they deserve as cross-cutting >issues. This should include explicit >consideration of how global, regional and >national policies affect human rights, and the >development of positive policy principles to >build an open and accessible internet for >all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would >like to offer assistance to the organisers of >the main plenary sessions to do this, and would >like to support all stakeholders through >providing access to relevant guidelines and >experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and >future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Fri Sep 11 07:57:04 2009 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:57:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <1E5F2F25-A47D-45FF-8902-F38C73BCBEA7@ipjustice.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> <1E5F2F25-A47D-45FF-8902-F38C73BCBEA7@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: >I endorse signing the statement also and am very glad that this >caucus is taking this issue up with the IGF. Many thanks to the >drafters and editors of the statement too. I suport this statemant. Stefano Trumpy > >Thank you, >Robin > > >On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Willie Currie wrote: > >>I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. >> >>Willie >> >>Lisa Horner wrote: >> >>>Hi all >>> >>>We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final >>>version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a >>>message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. >>>I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it >>>getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in >>>touch with the DCs. >>> >>>Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final >>>para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's >>>acceptable to you. >>> >>>Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. >>> >>>All the best, >>> >>>Lisa >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call >>> >>> >>>The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >>>programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human >>>rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed >>>the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite >>>this, human rights and associated principles have received too >>>little attention at the IGF so >>>far. This is problematic because : >>> >>>* Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>>expression, privacy, civic participation, education and >>>development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive >>>policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, >>>including state and private actors at both national as well as >>>global levels. >>> >>> >>>* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >>>advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >>>knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and >>>enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold >>>human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being >>>of peoples, globally. >>> >>> >>>* International human rights, as contained in the Universal >>>Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >>>treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally >>>binding. The growing role of information and communication >>>technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that >>>have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement >>>the human rights of their citizens. >>> >>> >>>* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>>standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >>>different rights against each other to preserve individual and >>>public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, >>>human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet >>>governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on >>>the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >>>expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states >>>and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to >>>derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>>The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the >>>human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be >>>included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF >>>sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they >>>deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit >>>consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect >>>human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >>>build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and >>>undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers >>>of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support >>>all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines >>>and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as >>>renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 11 09:23:12 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Who Presents and why- Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <622288.79314.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ian,   Who presents this document?  Why does that person present this document?  How did they get to do that? --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 7:45 PM Yes from me – well done On 11/09/09 5:36 AM, "Willie Currie" wrote: I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. Willie Lisa Horner wrote:       Hi all       We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs.       Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you.       Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now.       All the best,   Lisa       ------------------------------------------------------------------------       FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because :   *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.     The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme.                       ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 hempalshrestha at gmail.com Fri Sep 11 09:30:51 2009 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:15:51 +0545 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> <1E5F2F25-A47D-45FF-8902-F38C73BCBEA7@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Please count me among the members, who would like to support this statement. Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Stefano Trumpy wrote: > I endorse signing the statement also and am very glad that this caucus is > taking this issue up with the IGF. Many thanks to the drafters and editors > of the statement too. > > > I suport this statemant. > Stefano Trumpy > > > Thank you, > > Robin > > > > On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Willie Currie wrote: > > > I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. > > Willie > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to > say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and > Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. > > Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. > > All the best, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of > information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights > against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition > to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful > tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with > security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom > of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and > governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights > and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 pimienta at funredes.org Fri Sep 11 08:59:35 2009 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:59:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> <1E5F2F25-A47D-45FF-8902-F38C73BCBEA7@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <200909111300.n8BD0SmQ030434@funredes.org> I do support the statement. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Sep 11 10:11:50 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:11:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA67@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909091027i15e20755g954841bd2e69d456@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA67@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909110711x6b37e71bk5b91860feb747c63@mail.gmail.com> Every right has a core, the noncompliance with constitutes a violation (a "negative" application). Similarly, each right also has room for "positive" application, both in building things to comply with those rights as well as an area of growth outside the core that perhaps may be in a gray area as to whether it is or is not protected by the right. Those sworn to "uphold" various rights ought to err on the side of upholding (put positively) or compliance (put "negatively) in this grey area. Lisa relates a story about people being more willing to cooperate if rights are put in the "positive" light rather than the "negative" light about abstaining from violations of rights. If this is merely a rhetorical difference then the result is the same. But personally, if I were party to such a conversation it would cause me to wonder why in the world there would be hesitation on anyone's part regarding the job of abstaining from human rights violations, even though that's a "negative" job. Do they seriously, in their heart of hearts, want to be free to violate such rights, even if unintentionally? I would think, rather, that they would have no such intent to violate anyone's human rights and would welcome any input or assistance available such as guidance in how not to UNintentionally violate or diminish the rights. In answer to Lisa's question below, yes, there can be a "positive" "framework" for working on rights issues, but if, as seems to be a serious risk in both the text as is as well as the situation on the ground described by Lisa, there is some resistance to full awareness and/or discussion of refraining from violations of the rights, in favor of some "positive" approach, this seems very likely to result in a situation where "positive" work is accomplished on the margins whilst violations occur at the core of the rights, from time to time. Such a scenario, with resistance to discussion of rights violations because they are "negative" actually results in a scenario where rights only apply when public servants or officials WISH them to apply -- for that is when they will be happy to work with a "positive" approach. Whenever those same public servants or officials are engaged in conduct that violates the rights, they will bristle at the "negative" approach. This is not good for rights. With rights, as with all VALUABLE things, they are greatly subject to violation, and one must be prepared to defend them vigorously, even if with some diplomacy, or else they will be lost as surely as one's purse or wallet on the subway or train. I see my role (and suggest it ought to be everyone's but everyone's free to do as they see fit) as upholding the rights, without compromise, because compromise of a right is nothing other than violation of the same right (unless a right of equal or greater stature is truly in conflict). Example: Torture every other day instead of every day is just a continuing violation, not a good type of compromise. For the above reasons, the statement falls short of a full defense of those rights so I would dissent in part. That being said, I believe everyone's heart is in the right place, but the text is not fully in the right place, and I believe that no one is free to advocate anything less than the full scope of human rights, least of all any public servants or officials, whose primary reason for existing is to protect and effectuate those rights. They should be happy to do their job, not resistant or uncomfortable about it. I can't imagine a police officer being uncomfortable about the "negative" aspects of their job in restraining or stopping criminal law-based rights violations, so why should it be different with other human rights? Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/10/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi Paul > > Whilst human rights are legally binding and inviolable, I do think that > the rights "framework" of treaties, covenants and jurisprudence that has > built up over the past 60 years can be presented and used as a > "positive" tool for making decisions and influencing policy, rather than > simply being a case of "negative" compliance. Many people that I've > spoken to recently in the government and private sectors have said that > they're much more willing to engage with human rights compliance issues > when presented in this more positive light. I think coming at it from > both directions is important, balancing emphasis on the legally binding > and inviolability of human rights with discussions of how human rights > can actually help policy makers to make sound and fair decisions. For > example, we don't need to start from scratch in discussing how to > balance the public interest with individual interest on the internet, as > it's already all there in the international human rights framework > (which is of course also legally binding). > > People who were concerned that the legally binding, fundamental aspect > of human rights didn't come out strongly enough in the first draft of > the statement have indicated that they're now happy with subsequent > drafts. So, as it's late in the day now and we have to move for > consensus, I hope you don't mind if we leave the statement as it is for > now. We can of course continue this discussion on the list. > > All the best, > Lisa > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 18:27 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > Yes, the "legally binding" frame is indeed inserted in the latest > draft, you're correct, but nearly all of the other words I pointed as > problematic because they suggest or infer optional-ity still remain in > the latest draft. I'm suggesting a fix, if you're interested, that one > can apply for themselves, in the last paragraph of this short reply. > I know that the drafters of this statement "get it", but documents are > best interpreted for the raw text they contain (in the abstract), and > if, in a manner of speaking, "binding human rights" lack the modest > power to revise the wording of the other phrases in the statement that > still remain unchanged, then one might infer that they're not really > binding, they're more like "standards" "guidelines" and such that can > be freely ignored where deemed desirable. (and these latter terms are > still used in the statement, and they sound like optional concepts to > me, like informal "rules of thumb"). > > Even the term in the latest draft "gives the required attention to the > human rights framework" is easily avoided by reasoning that the > "attention due" in this case is precisely nothing. (Though I very > highly suspect that's not at all the intent of the drafters) > > If you see my point, then I suppose anyone can take the "binding" > terms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, and use > them as a test on the other phrases in the document to see if they all > measure up. These are words like "inalienable" "nonderogable" > "inviolable", and so on. This constellation of words or concepts will > help to rein in the remaining loose inferences that are available to > someone not eager to apply human rights and result in a strong, > tightly knit document. > > These loose inferences, not one of them a part of the drafter's > intent, are what the opponent lawyers of human rights in some > particular context will seize on as ambiguities or holes or escape > hatches for what you are actually, I think, wishing to COMMAND (in the > name of the law, of course). > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > On 9/9/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. >> >> Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes > that >> rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. >> >> Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last >> sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers >> with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to >> consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are >> discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of >> your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an >> earlier version. >> >> I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've > had >> today. >> >> The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're > moving >> towards consensus... >> >> Thanks, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > centrality >> of human rights in the information society, but human rights and >> associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >> far. This is problematic as: >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to >> development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive > policies >> of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state >> and private actors at both national as well as global levels. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >> knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance >> these opportunities. >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >> treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally >> binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies >> has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these >> instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of > their >> citizens. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human > rights >> are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, >> such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in > compliance >> with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating >> the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework >> also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other >> stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human >> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in > the >> planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights >> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This >> should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and >> national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive >> policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. > The >> Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the >> organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines >> and experts. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] >> Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >> principles >> >> In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights >> *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework >> with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of >> standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes >> "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to >> "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." >> >> All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human >> rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word >> that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how >> mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger >> to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case >> with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to >> be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" >> to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the >> person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. >> >> The true status of international human rights is more as follows: >> >> (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the >> rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society >> goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their >> most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and >> respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even >> if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and >> often deadly quite soon. >> >> (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do >> in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal >> constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as >> federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher >> than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference >> into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as >> supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty >> ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human >> rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's >> opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally >> applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). >> >> (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are >> nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the >> countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty >> ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is >> free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they >> were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. >> >> (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for >> issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are >> applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying >> principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the >> new context. >> >> (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact >> binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used >> in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional >> scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a >> "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a >> trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on >> behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them >> wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to >> narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to >> respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase >> "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is >> joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with >> the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. >> >> (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it >> exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of >> the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on >> torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international >> law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, >> under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases >> of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no >> defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to >> violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. >> (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief >> Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles >> apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to >> the Germans). >> >> As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right >> doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes >> in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go >> away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in >> the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus >> perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. >> If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual >> rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at >> Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two >> decades. >> >> In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, >> but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold >> their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding >> them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive >> interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. >> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> >> On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain >> (a) why >>> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we > think >>> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >>> >>> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's >> comments >>> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to >> ensure >>> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment >> about >>> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally >> think we >>> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in >> positive >>> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we > should >> of >>> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation >> of >>> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and >> engagement >>> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including >> it in >>> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >>> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include >> as >>> guidance for session organizers? >>> >>> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions >> for >>> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult >> to >>> incorporate into amendments. >>> >>> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >>> >>> All the best, >>> Lisa >>> >>> -------------------- >>> >>> DRAFT STATEMENT >>> >>> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society >> Internet >>> Governance Caucus. >>> >>> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate > attention >> in >>> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis >> Agenda >>> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, >> but >>> human rights and associated principles have received very little >> attention >>> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >>> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and >> privacy are >>> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> advancing human >>> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and >> resources. It >>> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of >> standards >>> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines >> on how >>> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual >> and >>> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >>> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >>> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers >> both >>> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be >> addressed >>> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This >> should >>> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental >> rights, >>> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open > and >>> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer >> assistance to >>> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would > like >> to >>> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant >> guidelines and >>> experts. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >>> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >>> To: governance >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >> principles >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week >> with >>> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >>> >>> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to >> draft >>> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >>> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not >> to >>> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >>> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >>> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >>> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and > their >>> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support >> for >>> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >>> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >>> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >>> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very > end >>> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >>> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we > can >>> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >>> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >>> >>> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >>> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only >> of >>> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, > but >>> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >>> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being > too >>> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >>> like France as much as it would, say, China. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature >>> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box #1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4026 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Sep 11 10:30:15 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:30:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909110730u6f54e577mf15021ea69358bd7@mail.gmail.com> The statement is much improved, I freely admit. However, for the reasons just stated under another thread, I dissent but only because the statement does not assert rights STRONGLY enough. Perhaps this is better than "consensus" because it tends to indicate (presuming it is ever repeated) that the statement is already watered down, if you will, enough, and is not a "manifesto" for positive change that we seek, or lobby for, but rather is a request or insistence that officials DO THEIR JOB. I'd personally love to see someone respond that human rights are NOT in their job description, or that they deem a request for them to do their job description to be out of bounds somehow because it is "negative" in form. If human rights represent the will of the people of the world, and it does based on the widespread adoption of human rights charters, then those public servants who implement them can not be heard to complain about what their "bosses" and employers, the sovereign peoples of the world, instruct them to do. As the UNHDR itself says, the ONLY legitimate form of governance is through power derived from the people. Public officials or public servants are merely trustees with a job description to uphold these rights. Just as an employee can't object to being told, in "negative" terms, to "do your job", neither can public officials, except in the case of public officials the employer/employee analogy applies with even stronger force, much stronger force. In fact, since the only legitimate sovereign power under the UNHDR comes from the people, unless it is proved that the people of the world don't consent to the UNHDR and related rights documents, then those rights are the commands of the sovereign. In the old days the sovereign was the king, whom one could not say "no" to, but today it is the people to whom one can not (legitimately, that is) say "no" to. Rights are a territory or legal ground upon which one need not yield, and of course should not yield, because the yielding is itself a violation or facilitating one. If one knows what to do, and how to argue it, then one can, as I try to do, be both friendly yet very open to attack, because if anyone attacks "me" (or the rights, rather) on this specific ground of inalienable human rights, they do so at their own peril, because the very act of attacking or critiquing those rights, or refusing to uphold them, constitutes the proof that the attacker is either not doing their job, or believes in something other than democracy or republics as forms of governance, or both. In either case, the attacker will, metaphorically speaking, go down in flames. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/10/09, Ginger Paque wrote: > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and > opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement > or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we > had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> >> >> We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version >> below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list >> to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger >> and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning >> meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. >> >> >> >> Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as >> I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> Lisa >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >> >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and >> associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >> far. This is problematic because : >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, >> privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly >> threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of >> actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both >> national as well as global levels. >> >> >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious >> opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >> >> >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other >> universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role >> of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal >> obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, >> protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >> >> >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights >> are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, >> such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance >> with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other >> stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human >> rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This >> should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national >> policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy >> principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus >> [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of >> the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. >> We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity >> to make Rights and Principles a core theme. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 12:15:47 2009 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:15:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! Message-ID: <4d976d8e0909110915l33a8c785xeadbe00a44e096af@mail.gmail.com> Hi everybody a friend asked me to circulate the following invitation: ------ On November 19-20, 2009, the EU ministerial conference will define the main priorities of e-government in the next three years. Help craft a collective, open declaration that will push governments to embrace the web culture of openness and collaboration in designing future public services. By working together and tapping the collective wisdom of a large group, our declaration will carry a lot of weight. We will present the top-rated, collaboratively written version at the ministerial in Malmö and then encourage ministers to act in accordance with it. In this website, YOU CAN HELP WRITE THE DECLARATION by RATING the existing version, REMIXING different versions to form new ones, and PROPOSING you own version of the declaration. http://mixedink.com/Eups20/Manifesto ------- Sounds thematically interesting and I really like the way they invite participation etc. (nice tool setup) Best Max < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. —----------------------Margaret Mead < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > Dr. Max Senges Chair Internet Rights and Principles Coalition www.internetrightsandprinciples.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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 11 14:12:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Kindness & "human" rights & DEMANDS Message-ID: <936650.15890.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Someone said somethin like "each man is a nation" This is kinda true (yes there is more to the quote - and it should say each human)   Respect and dignity for the rights of another is a very worthy goal.  It is important to note in our own lives that kindness is the epitome of this concept.  If we, as individuals, show kindness to another we do many things; Make a clear unambiguous action statement of respect: Empower another to respect back: Acknowledge a "divinity" or purpose above and beyond us ( in this case a principle): Set an example: Create a synergy.   Assume we are all microcosms of nations. Assume nations are conglomerates of people. Assume what we do personally is totally within our power.   To stand on solid footing whilst making demands, we must each one of us personally give credence to our demand by our own actions. -------------- 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 cafonso.ca Fri Sep 11 19:20:05 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:20:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4AAADB25.5060504@cafonso.ca> I endorse the statement. --c.a. Deirdre Williams wrote: > I support the statement. > Deirdre Williams > Saint Lucia > > 2009/9/10 Marilia Maciel : > >> I support the statement. >> >> Marilia >> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Katitza Rodriguez >> wrote: >> >>> I endorse the statement >>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >>>> >>>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >>>> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >>>> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >>>> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >>>> principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >>>> far. This is problematic because : >>>> >>>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>>> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are >>>> strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing >>>> number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors >>>> at both national as well as global levels. >>>> >>>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >>>> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >>>> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >>>> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >>>> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >>>> >>>> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal >>>> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties >>>> and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The >>>> growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed >>>> the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to >>>> respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >>>> >>>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>>> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >>>> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >>>> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are >>>> therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as >>>> how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the >>>> rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >>>> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >>>> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>>> >>>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >>>> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >>>> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >>>> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should >>>> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >>>> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >>>> build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >>>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >>>> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >>>> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming >>>> IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and >>>> Principles a core theme. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Valeria Betancourt >>> Coordinadora / Coordinator >>> Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy >>> Programme >>> >>> http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio >>> http://lac.derechos.apc.org >>> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for >>> Progressive Communications, APC >>> http://www.apc.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 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center of Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 21:10:46 2009 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:10:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f0909111810s18352c6fu6c11c558eacf0397@mail.gmail.com> I agree Ginger, Thanks for the job. Best, Roxana 2009/9/10 Ginger Paque > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and > opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement > or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we > had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Sep 12 03:56:43 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:56:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AAADB25.5060504@cafonso.ca> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> <4AAADB25.5060504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4AAB543B.30207@wzb.eu> I do too. jeanette Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I endorse the statement. > > --c.a. > > Deirdre Williams wrote: >> I support the statement. >> Deirdre Williams >> Saint Lucia >> >> 2009/9/10 Marilia Maciel : >> >>> I support the statement. >>> >>> Marilia >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Katitza Rodriguez >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I endorse the statement >>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >>>>> >>>>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >>>>> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >>>>> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >>>>> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >>>>> principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >>>>> far. This is problematic because : >>>>> >>>>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>>>> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are >>>>> strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing >>>>> number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors >>>>> at both national as well as global levels. >>>>> >>>>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >>>>> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >>>>> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >>>>> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >>>>> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >>>>> >>>>> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal >>>>> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties >>>>> and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The >>>>> growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed >>>>> the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to >>>>> respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >>>>> >>>>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>>>> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >>>>> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >>>>> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are >>>>> therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as >>>>> how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the >>>>> rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >>>>> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >>>>> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >>>>> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >>>>> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >>>>> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should >>>>> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >>>>> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >>>>> build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >>>>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >>>>> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >>>>> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming >>>>> IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and >>>>> Principles a core theme. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Valeria Betancourt >>>> Coordinadora / Coordinator >>>> Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy >>>> Programme >>>> >>>> http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio >>>> http://lac.derechos.apc.org >>>> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for >>>> Progressive Communications, APC >>>> http://www.apc.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 >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>> FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Center of Technology and Society >>> Getulio Vargas Foundation >>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Sat Sep 12 07:02:25 2009 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <0b6c01ca328a$708a2de0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <719204.76159.qm@web27808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear all, you have done a great work, I am supporting this statement,add my name. In Peace, GATETE Jean-Yves --- En date de : Ven 11.9.09, Thomas Lowenhaupt a écrit : De: Thomas Lowenhaupt Objet: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Vendredi 11 Septembre 2009, 4h49 _filtered #yiv2071102232 { font-family:Calibri;} _filtered #yiv2071102232 { font-family:Consolas;} _filtered #yiv2071102232 { font-family:Bookman Old Style;} _filtered #yiv2071102232 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} #yiv2071102232 P.MsoNormal { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";COLOR:black;FONT-SIZE:12pt;} #yiv2071102232 LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";COLOR:black;FONT-SIZE:12pt;} #yiv2071102232 DIV.MsoNormal { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";COLOR:black;FONT-SIZE:12pt;} #yiv2071102232 A:link { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2071102232 SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2071102232 A:visited { COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2071102232 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;} #yiv2071102232 P { FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";MARGIN-BOTTOM:5.95pt;COLOR:black;MARGIN-LEFT:0cm;FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN-RIGHT:0cm;} #yiv2071102232 PRE { MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Courier New";COLOR:black;FONT-SIZE:10pt;} #yiv2071102232 SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar { FONT-FAMILY:Consolas;COLOR:black;} #yiv2071102232 SPAN.yshortcuts { } #yiv2071102232 SPAN.EmailStyle22 { FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri", "sans-serif";COLOR:windowtext;} #yiv2071102232 .MsoChpDefault { FONT-SIZE:10pt;} #yiv2071102232 DIV.Section1 { } Important issue. Good work. I'm proud to add my name to the list of supporters.   Thomas Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:18 PM Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all   We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not.  I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs.   Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you.   Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now.   All the best, Lisa   ------------------------------------------------------------------------   FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme.           ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sat Sep 12 10:10:00 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:40:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AAADB25.5060504@cafonso.ca> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> <4AAADB25.5060504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4AABABB8.9060103@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 Sat Sep 12 11:39:40 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:39:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e0909110915l33a8c785xeadbe00a44e096af@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d976d8e0909110915l33a8c785xeadbe00a44e096af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4d976d8e0909110915l33a8c785xeadbe00a44e096af at mail.gmail.com>, at 18:15:47 on Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Max Senges writes >Help craft a collective, open declaration that will push governments to >embrace the web culture of openness and collaboration in designing >future public services Don't forget to encourage them to continue to have those government services available through non-electronic channels. While it's good to be able use an e-channel, forcing its exclusive use runs the danger of creating an often overlooked social inclusion issue. -- 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 12 16:38:19 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:38:19 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! Message-ID: <14224156.1252787900005.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Roland and all, Very good point here. Well done Roeland! As Paul has often reminded and articulated in various terms to me regarding the often errors of "The Machines", which can be interperted in various ways of course, but none the less recognizes that despite programing of "The Machines" programing errors are not always readily recognized or even admitted. Ergo other means of communicating to government officials should remain open, and above all Transparent. -----Original Message----- >From: Roland Perry >Sent: Sep 12, 2009 10:39 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! > >In message ><4d976d8e0909110915l33a8c785xeadbe00a44e096af at mail.gmail.com>, at >18:15:47 on Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Max Senges writes >>Help craft a collective, open declaration that will push governments to >>embrace the web culture of openness and collaboration in designing >>future public services > >Don't forget to encourage them to continue to have those government >services available through non-electronic channels. While it's good to >be able use an e-channel, forcing its exclusive use runs the danger of >creating an often overlooked social inclusion issue. >-- >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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 12 19:42:26 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! In-Reply-To: <14224156.1252787900005.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <495304.80118.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am really quite humored by the corporate and governent mentality that sees cost savings in going "online" with everything. Obviously in some circumstances it is good to automate activity and preserve resources, improve efficiency, cut costs. But if we actually accept that as the norm and that there must be an exception to do something in person, oh my!! --- On Sat, 9/12/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, September 12, 2009, 8:38 PM Roland and all,   Very good point here.  Well done Roeland!  As Paul has often reminded and articulated in various terms to me regarding the often errors of "The Machines", which can be interperted in various ways of course, but none the less recognizes that despite programing of "The Machines" programing errors are not always readily recognized or even admitted.  Ergo other means of communicating to government officials should remain open, and above all Transparent. -----Original Message----- >From: Roland Perry >Sent: Sep 12, 2009 10:39 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! > >In message ><4d976d8e0909110915l33a8c785xeadbe00a44e096af at mail.gmail.com>, at >18:15:47 on Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Max Senges writes >>Help craft a collective, open declaration that will push governments to >>embrace the web culture of openness and collaboration in designing >>future public services > >Don't forget to encourage them to continue to have those government >services available through non-electronic channels. While it's good to >be able use an e-channel, forcing its exclusive use runs the danger of >creating an often overlooked social inclusion issue. >-- >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 -------------- 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 puna_gb at yahoo.com Sun Sep 13 07:23:59 2009 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <19754005.1252608805199.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <413622.54039.qm@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi All, I endorse the statement!   Regards, --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: From: Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lisa Horner" Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 8:53 PM #yiv523874998 {font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}#yiv523874998 p{margin:0px;} All,     I gladly support and endorse this statement.   -----Original Message----- From: Eric Dierker Sent: Sep 10, 2009 8:00 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles I concur and consent and endorse wholeheartedly this document   "I may perspire over the details and find fault with a word, but I would gladly die for the principles" --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Lisa Horner wrote: From: Lisa Horner Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 11:18 AM Hi all   We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not.  I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs.   Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you.   Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now.   All the best, Lisa   ------------------------------------------------------------------------   FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy..  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme.           -----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 -----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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Sep 13 09:22:28 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:22:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <27680051.97870.1252848148708.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j17> Dear Meryem and all I agree with the text completed by Meryem and support the statement in these terms. Thanks Meryem and all the best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 03/09/09 12:09 > De : "Meryem Marzouki" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lisa Horner" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear Lisa and all, > Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express in time my support to the latter. > Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, so the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. > My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. > Best, Meryem > -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : -------------------- > DRAFT STATEMENT > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human rights framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how to balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it the required scheme as well as a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet. TBesides stating obligations on States and governments, the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and responsibilities of other different stakeholders. > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] -------------- 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 glaser at nic.br Sun Sep 13 10:27:38 2009 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:27:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Principles ... In-Reply-To: <00c09f88d2d81f45f20473755cc0@google.com> References: <00c09f88d2d81f45f20473755cc0@google.com> Message-ID: <4AAD015A.9080401@nic.br> Brazilian Internet Steering Committee document about Internet Principles. Hartmut -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internet Principles_en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 33701 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 mazzone at ebu.ch Sun Sep 13 10:29:33 2009 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:29:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Principles ... References: <00c09f88d2d81f45f20473755cc0@google.com> <4AAD015A.9080401@nic.br> Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A2861A33@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> Grazie milton From: Hartmut Richard Glaser [mailto:glaser at nic.br] Sent: dimanche, 13. septembre 2009 16:28 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Internet Principles ... Brazilian Internet Steering Committee document about Internet Principles. Hartmut -------------- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Sep 13 10:45:46 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:45:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Registration_is_now_open_Workshop_@IT?= =?UTF-8?Q?U_=C2=A0/_Ateler_18_sept_UIT?= In-Reply-To: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> References: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <16976657.99449.1252853146388.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j17> Mon cher Francis Je ne pourrai malheureusement pas assister à cette intéressante réunion ni d'ailleurs aux autres (Eurodig...) à mon très grand regret. Je viens en effet de rentrer de ma convalescence post-opératoire et je ne suis pas encore en mesure de voyager. Je te souhaite un débat riche et un échange fructueux, et espère avoir le plaisir de te retrouver -peut-être le mois prochain si mon état de santé le permet- pour poursuivre les tâches que nous nous sommes assignées tout au long du SMSI et de son suivi. Plein succès donc à ton projet et mes tès sincères amitiés Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 04/09/09 00:16 > De : "Dr. Francis MUGUET" > A : "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" , "Governance" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Registration is now open Workshop @ITU / Ateler 18 sept UIT > > Dear friends/ Chers Amis > > Englsh / Français > > The registration is now open. > Les inscriptions sont maintenant ouvertes. > > Attached below, the workshop poster > > > > > > > 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. > > Atelier dans le cadre d'une expertise > > La situation actuelle concernant le Système des Noms de Domaine (DNS) suscite un intérêt de plus en plus grand, alors que l'expiration, en Septembre prochain, de l' accord de projet conjoint (JPA),entre l'ICANN et le Département américain du Commerce, approche. Au lieu de s'engager dans d'âpres débats sur la façon de co-gérer un quasi-monopole, cet atelier informel est organisé afin d'étudier s'il existe des solutions techniques pour le développement des futurs réseaux d'information. Existe-t-il une solution effective pour ouvrir à la compétition les services de nommage ? Cet atelier informel est organisé dans le contexte de la mission d'expertise qui a été récemment contractée par l'UIT auprès du Dr. FrancisMuguet , après sa présentation, en Mai dernier, au Forum du SMSI : Ouverture à la concurrence de l'infrastructure de l'espace de nommage . Cette mission d'expert est dans la ligne des décisions du dernier Conseil de l'UIT Groupe de travail sur le SMSI, où l'UIT a été priée d'étudier l'évolution de l'internet du futur. L'atelier informel d'expertise est hébergé au siège de l'UIT, le vendredi 18 Septembre, le plaçant après le Dialogue européen sur la gouvernance de l'Internet (Lundi 14 - Mardi 15. Septembre) et la réunion de planification de l'IGF (Mercredi 16 - Jeudi 17 Septembre) à Genève L'atelier, organisé par Francis Muguet, va inclure dans la matinée, des exposés et une table ronde, et dans l'après-midi, des discussions ouvertes. > > > > > > > > > [ 18sep09posterA4.jpg (112.4 Ko) ] > [ message-footer.txt (0.3 Ko) ] -------------- 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 Sep 14 01:15:21 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Freedom of Speech and Expression Message-ID: <561058.83061.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am not exactly sure what you are asking for in this posed adventure, so I choose to answer.   Freedom of Speech and Expression Let me begin, of all doggone places here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech . It is a very cool place to start because the site itself is a wonderful expression of speech. Oh how us "intellectuals" love to hate this pedestrian attempt to settle on common parlance. We eschew its' validity. We deride its' authors. It is not pure. I have heard some on this list suggest it should be censored because of its' innacuracies. But it is truly free speech in practice and it is beautiful.   Over some years I have been learning to speak Vietnamese. Vietnamese as a rule, like most Francophonia reject accents. They believe the language nuances must be pure or not at all. So my Vietnamese is censored. I study languages for the sake of it. I am familiar with ebonics, have spent good time in black ghettos, listened intently to the music eminating from the East West wars of Rap, grew up and logged many hours in locker rooms and playing fields where the intonations and lexicon was decidedly American Black.  But if I as a 51 year old white man were to break out -- I would be sorely censored.  Especially young teenagers in school. We break into clicques. We decide what is cool; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cool  Every language has such a concept. If you are not cool at such an age you are shunned from speaking. I was youngest of six. We sat nightly for family dinner. I think I was 8 or so before I said much more than grace and yes mam or sir. I was (no mistake - I tried a few times - bad result) censored. How many ways are there to say "do not speak until spoken to"?  How many cultures have a similar proverb "keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, open it and remove all doubt" How many self styled readers and lurkers are there on this list? How many restrain themselves from "speech". Shyness. Inability to find the "right" words. Past negative results. Low self esteem. Energy - lack thereof.   These examples I put forth to show real governance. Real restriction on free speech. It is our dayly self restraint. It is social not governmental.   Governance only has one proper place.  Protecting free speech. Society already restricts it enough.   --- On Wed, 9/9/09, linda misek-falkoff wrote: From: linda misek-falkoff Subject: Re: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" Cc: respectful.interfaces at gmail.com, "l.d. misek-falkoff" Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 8:40 PM Hi Ginger and all:   Thanks much for sending this statement out (process) and for all the good thought and substantive work (merits) that went into it.   I'd like to look at "The Four Freedoms"  which are often cited internationally though penned in a national context (Pres. F. D. Roosevelt) and see how such virtual gold standards fan out to the Rights , Responsibilities, and Principles now sought, claimed, elucidated, and even if partially - achieved..   Freedom of Speech and Expression Freedom of Religion (or Belief Systems) Freedom from Want Freedom from Fear.   Hope there are 'takers on this';   With warm regards, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.) for i.d. here: Respectful Interfaces Programme, Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N., World Education Fellowship.   Law; Computing; Humanities; cyberspace ARPANet forward. On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out unequivocally on this topic. I agree. Best, Ginger shaila mistry wrote: Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN...  as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!! shaila     Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's  regards Shaila     DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. thanks Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!                                      From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF.  This is problematic as: > *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 gpaque at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 04:03:11 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:33:11 -0430 Subject: [governance] Charter Amendment Ballot--Did you vote yet? In-Reply-To: <4AAD015A.9080401@nic.br> References: <00c09f88d2d81f45f20473755cc0@google.com> <4AAD015A.9080401@nic.br> Message-ID: <4AADF8BF.3020403@gmail.com> Hi Everybody.. Your vote is important! Have you voted yet? Please take a moment to find your email ballot from Derrick Cogburn and send in your vote! Thanks, 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 gpaque at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 06:33:48 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:03:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF Message-ID: <4AAE1C0C.9040807@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 Mon Sep 14 06:34:41 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:34:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants focus on Human Rights first in the EuroDIG and IGF Message-ID: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at the European Broadcasting Union: During the early afternoon session on the first day currently in progress titled "Roundtable of European parliamentary perspectives regarding Internet governance" the Council of Europe has emphasized that its first and foremost objective with regards to Internet Governance in Europe is focusing and strengthening the Human Rights with regards to the Internet. EU Parliament Member Mrs. Redding has commented that the role of COE is very important for the European Union but we should remember that we need faster decision making with regards to IG and we cannot turn into an organization as large as the UN. More underway..............please follow the discussion live at: http://www.eurodig.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 07:09:40 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:09:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants focus on Human Rights first in the EuroDIG and IGF In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70909140409k63d46033pe266eeddd46376e5@mail.gmail.com> IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at the European Broadcasting Union 2: Mrs. Redding emphasizes on Network Neutrality to be brought into more discussion and in particularly with regards to governance. We are confronted by the questions for NN and we would like to bring it into focus of all our discussions on IG. Alun Michael says that the rest of the parliamentarians have commented that we have to take Internet Governance as seriously as Civil Society. Serbian member believes that it will be a slow process like any other international institutional and policy change process but it will happen. COE says that the internet will not work without improving broadband access and in particular Citizen access otherwise it no government will be able to work. Alun says that similar issues were discussed in the African IGF. Mrs. Redding says: 1. IGF is a very important experience and process. There is something true that it is a process. Internet leads the rules of the world, democracy, new regulations of the world and I hope that the next two IGFs can show that there is an issue and positive IGF towards these issues. 2. We need to change international institutions, increase and enforce participation of the people in the international institutions. - These issues will also be discussed in the next two days and workshops to be underway after lunch and tomorrow. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at > the European Broadcasting Union: > > During the early afternoon session on the first day currently in > progress titled "Roundtable of European parliamentary perspectives > regarding Internet governance" the Council of Europe has emphasized > that its first and foremost objective with regards to Internet > Governance in Europe is focusing and strengthening the Human Rights > with regards to the Internet. > > EU Parliament Member Mrs. Redding has commented that the role of COE > is very important for the European Union but we should remember that > we need faster decision making with regards to IG and we cannot turn > into an organization as large as the UN. > > > More underway..............please follow the discussion live at: > > http://www.eurodig.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 > -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 07:15:35 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:15:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909140409k63d46033pe266eeddd46376e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70909140409k63d46033pe266eeddd46376e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Listening online I also heard Alun Michael (I think) speak about the speed of change on the Internet and therefore the need for minimum legislation (which takes time) with maximum response and the need to design protections into the system as it evolves, something I also heard several times at the preparatory meeting in Rio last month. Deirdre 2009/9/14 Fouad Bajwa : >  IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at > the European Broadcasting Union 2: > > Mrs. Redding emphasizes on Network Neutrality to be brought into more > discussion and in particularly with regards to governance. We are > confronted by the questions for NN and we would like to bring it into > focus of all our discussions on IG. Alun Michael says that the rest of > the parliamentarians have commented that we have to take Internet > Governance as seriously as Civil Society. Serbian member believes that > it will be a slow process like any other international institutional > and policy change process but it will happen. > > COE says that the internet will not work without improving broadband > access and in particular Citizen access otherwise it no government > will be able to work. Alun says that similar issues were discussed in > the African IGF. > > Mrs. Redding says: > 1. IGF is a very important experience and process. There is something > true that it is a process. Internet leads the rules of the world, > democracy, new regulations of the world and I hope that the next two > IGFs can show that there is an issue and positive IGF towards these > issues. > > 2. We need to change international institutions, increase and enforce > participation of the people in the international institutions. > > - These issues will also be discussed in the next two days and > workshops to be underway after lunch and tomorrow. > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at >> the European Broadcasting Union: >> >> During the early afternoon session on the first day currently in >> progress titled "Roundtable of European parliamentary perspectives >> regarding Internet governance" the Council of Europe has emphasized >> that its first and foremost objective with regards to Internet >> Governance in Europe is focusing and strengthening the Human Rights >> with regards to the Internet. >> >> EU Parliament Member Mrs. Redding has commented that the role of COE >> is very important for the European Union but we should remember that >> we need faster decision making with regards to IG and we cannot turn >> into an organization as large as the UN. >> >> >> More underway..............please follow the discussion live at: >> >> http://www.eurodig.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 >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- “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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 14 14:59:03 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4AAE1C0C.9040807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <881064.69764.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sorry Ginger,   I must of missed that class in logic.  They want to know the impact of a program.  So instead of figuring out how to get input from those who are supposed to be impacted, they are asking the people who are funded to cause the impact.   So in short, they are asking for a self grading of the input these folks have been funded to make.  Kind of like asking the Doctor in order to find out how well his patients covered by insurance are doing.  Or maybe the car salesman how good a car is.   Let me guess,,,,,  then this report gets circulated back to determine how much to spend next go around.  Perpetual motion never had it so good.   Eric --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 10:33 AM Diplo Foundation is conducting an online survey to identify the impact of the IGF Process. Most of your are both familiar with and involved in this process, and are ideal candidates to provide valuable input. Please take a few minutes (10-12) to complete the survey. It will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Gracias, Merci, Hvala, Danke and more. Ginger http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=y7VRGPKsJUE2fJie_2bX2eaA_3d_3d DiploFoundation Begins Research Survey on the Impact of the IGF   The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process is a direct result of the UN World Summit on the Information Society. It offers a forum for developing discussions about Internet Governance in a multistakeholder environment which allows for not only cross-border but cross-stakeholder sharing on an equal basis of partners from governments, civil society, business, academia and the technical community. The fourth IGF will take place in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in November, 2009. As it enters its fourth iteration, the IGF is undergoing a process of review and evaluation, which makes a survey of its impact particularly relevant and important. DiploFoundaton has recently begun a research survey to identify this impact. This information will be valuable for all stakeholders to consider as best practices, examples or what has worked, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve. The process of developing and analyzing the results of this survey will be conducted by DiploFoundation and other partners, supported by a grant from AT&T. The project aims to collect a wide range of responses to questionnaires in two formats: an online survey which will provide input for a statistical analysis of trends in impact (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=y7VRGPKsJUE2fJie_2bX2eaA_3d_3d), and an interview survey of stakeholders from government, civil society, business, academia and host countries which will form the basis for a narrative report. The interviews and questionnaire will also collect recommendations for future enhancements of the IGF and related activities. This information will be valuable for all stakeholders to consider as best practices, examples of what has worked, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve. The project will be conducted during September and October, 2009, with the release of a report at the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, November 15, 2009. Please address any questions to IGF.Impact at gmail.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 Sep 14 15:22:02 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] UN-WSIS-IGF & ICANN - ALAC Message-ID: <238087.38765.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I was going to ask what do these two have in common.   But now I ask:  What is the difference?   About at the turn of the century someone had a global international direct vote of the people. Even the flaws were perfect.  The problem was,,,, it worked. Where is that model now with a decade of technical improvements? Hmmm. Where is Karl now?   When you have to be a member of a club in order to vote, chances are the vote will reflect special interests and not the interests of the individual.   very interesting; http://www.internationalvoting.com/  If you think this is all rhetorical: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081103172950AAxR3Y2   Why has the kill switch option been placed on world wide voting? -------------- 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 Mon Sep 14 18:32:09 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:32:09 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF Message-ID: <28900010.1252967530020.JavaMail.root@elwamui-chisos.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 Mon Sep 14 18:36:00 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:36:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Charter Amendment Ballot--Did you vote yet? Message-ID: <12263957.1252967760748.JavaMail.root@elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Ginger and all, Yes I already voted. -----Original Message----- >From: Ginger Paque >Sent: Sep 14, 2009 3:03 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Charter Amendment Ballot--Did you vote yet? > >Hi Everybody.. >Your vote is important! Have you voted yet? Please take a moment to find >your email ballot from Derrick Cogburn and send in your vote! >Thanks, 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 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 Sep 14 18:42:58 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:42:58 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Help European govts embrace Web 2.0! Message-ID: <2909573.1252968178301.JavaMail.root@elwamui-chisos.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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 23:32:26 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:32:26 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF Message-ID: Ginger and all, I've just finished completing the below mentioned q'aire and I have a few observations to make on it. While the q'aire seems to be reasonably well constructed I'm not sure about the basic framework of analysis that will be used. It seems from looking at the q'aire that a (the?) primary independent variable will be the national origin of the respondent. Also, it seems that the q'aire was constructed so as to see if respondents could in fact attribute "impact" to the IGF. I think that there are real issues (from the perspective of a "supporter" of the IGF) in these two elements and they do I think result in a pre-judging of the outcome of the q'aire unfavourably (and IMHO unreasonably) in the negative. While I personally have very severe reservations about the IGF (and have expressed these in this venue from time to time), my reservations had little or nothing to do with either the direct perceived "impact" of the IGF or on its specific impact on my own country Canada. Overall, I see little or no "impact" of the IGF in Canada (nor I would guess in all the OECD countries and only very selectively outside of these). This however, should not be taken as a complete negation of the significance of the IGF which I think lies elsewhere (if for no other reason than that the "impact" of a body such as the IGF is unlikely to be visible in such a short time period as is under review). Rather the significance of the IGF should be seen in terms of how it has directly and indirectly contributed to the creation of a basis for concensus, a language for discussion, a (suitable) cadre of informed people to carry on the discussion (it is here where I have my issues with the current IGF but I won't go into those further at this point), the provision of a venue for the undertaking of the discussions and so on and so on. None of this is particularly "national" (in fact little of it is likely to be national which is the point I think of transnational agencies) and little of it is likely to be visible as concrete "impacts" (or even outputs--which is what is currently being discussed in the form of possible IGF "recommendations" etc.). So a quest for identification/assessment/determination of "impacts" is really beside the point. To ask for (specific policy associated) "impacts" and "impacts" moreover visible at a national (or even global) level is in IMHO to impose a pre-judgement on the result of the inquiry and one which as mentioned above is very unlikely to be positive towards the continuation of the IGF. My own feeling is that the major impact/significance of the IGF is that it provides a relatively open and accessible opportunity for regular dialogue (and issue focussing) in areas of on-going and very rapidly changing significance and that IMHO is probably sufficient to warrant its continuation, but unfortunately none of that is captured or capturable via the q'aire being presented. Best to all, Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 5:49 PM To: irp Subject: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF (apologies for cross-posting) Hi everyone, Diplo Foundation is conducting an online survey to identify the impact of the IGF Process. Most of you are both familiar with and involved in this process, and are ideal candidates to provide valuable input. Please take a few minutes (10-12) to complete the survey. It will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Gracias, Merci, Hvala, Danke and more. Ginger http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=y7VRGPKsJUE2fJie_2bX2eaA_3d_3d DiploFoundation Begins Research Survey on the Impact of the IGF The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process is a direct result of the UN World Summit on the Information Society. It offers a forum for developing discussions about Internet Governance in a multistakeholder environment which allows for not only cross-border but cross-stakeholder sharing on an equal basis of partners from governments, civil society, business, academia and the technical community. The fourth IGF will take place in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in November, 2009. As it enters its fourth iteration, the IGF is undergoing a process of review and evaluation, which makes a survey of its impact particularly relevant and important. DiploFoundaton has recently begun a research survey to identify this impact. This information will be valuable for all stakeholders to consider as best practices, examples or what has worked, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve. The process of developing and analyzing the results of this survey will be conducted by DiploFoundation and other partners, supported by a grant from AT&T. The project aims to collect a wide range of responses to questionnaires in two formats: an online survey which will provide input for a statistical analysis of trends in impact (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=y7VRGPKsJUE2fJie_2bX2eaA_3d_3d), and an interview survey of stakeholders from government, civil society, business, academia and host countries which will form the basis for a narrative report. The interviews and questionnaire will also collect recommendations for future enhancements of the IGF and related activities. This information will be valuable for all stakeholders to consider as best practices, examples of what has worked, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve. The project will be conducted during September and October, 2009, with the release of a report at the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, November 15, 2009. Please address any questions to IGF.Impact at gmail.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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Sep 15 00:12:43 2009 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:12:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FD6A799-C466-411E-ABFC-84562ABE7805@ciroap.org> On 15/09/2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Rather the significance of the IGF should be seen in terms of how it > has directly and indirectly contributed to the creation of a basis > for concensus, a language for discussion, a (suitable) cadre of > informed people to carry on the discussion (it is here where I have > my issues with the current IGF but I won't go into those further at > this point), the provision of a venue for the undertaking of the > discussions and so on and so on. None of this is particularly > "national" (in fact little of it is likely to be national which is > the point I think of transnational agencies) and little of it is > likely to be visible as concrete "impacts" (or even outputs--which > is what is currently being discussed in the form of possible IGF > "recommendations" etc.). I mostly agree. In my view the questions were too focussed on the extent to which the IGF successfully facilitates discussion and produces understanding on discrete policy issues such as freedom of expression, access to knowledge, etc, and omits to consider higher- level meta-discussion of Internet governance arrangements. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 15 02:01:51 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact of the IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <320067.74768.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> What do you mean by this paragraph. Are you stating that a "suitable" cadre is a positive impact? --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:     Rather the significance of the IGF should be seen in terms of how it has directly and indirectly contributed to the creation of a basis for concensus, a language for discussion, a (suitable) cadre of informed people to carry on the discussion (it is here where I have my issues with the current IGF but I won't go into those further at this point), the provision of a venue for the undertaking of the discussions and so on and so on.  None of this is particularly "national" (in fact little of it is likely to be national which is the point I think of transnational agencies) and little of it is likely to be visible as concrete "impacts" (or even outputs--which is what is currently being discussed in the form of possible IGF "recommendations" etc.). So a quest for identification/assessment/determination of "impacts" is really beside the point.     -------------- 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 Tue Sep 15 04:12:19 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:42:19 -0430 Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact In-Reply-To: <1FD6A799-C466-411E-ABFC-84562ABE7805@ciroap.org> References: <1FD6A799-C466-411E-ABFC-84562ABE7805@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4AAF4C63.5090805@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 anja at cis-india.org Tue Sep 15 04:47:00 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (anja) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:17:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Gender DC support for IGC statement on rights In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <189b361b94226d4bad0d7198b17b9a79@cis-india.org> Dear all, I'm happy to let you know that the Gender DC has agreed to support the IGC statement on rights, even though the group felt it was problematic that such a long statement on rights did not contain any references to women's rights. As was pointed out during the discussion within the group, "the Gender DC sees women's human rights as central to the IG discourse and states have a special duty to address women's exclusion and their rights in relation to the Internet and freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development, respectively". In recognition of the importance of civil society interventions on rights, the DC decided to endorse the IGC statement as it stands anyways, but also expressed the hope that the above mentioned concerns will receive explicit attention in future statements. Best wishes, Anja ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 15 04:53:25 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:53:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Gender DC support for IGC statement on rights References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <189b361b94226d4bad0d7198b17b9a79@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E84@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Thanks Anja. The Internet Rights and Principles coalition and Freedom of Expression Online coalition have also agreed to support the statement. The A2K coalition expressed interest, but I don't think they had enough time to discuss, similarly for the Privacy coalition. The Protection of children online coalition raised cimilar points to the gender coalition. Although they agree with everything in the statement, they felt it wasn't appropriate for them to sign as it doesn't explicitly mention the rights of children. I think that this is something that we need to think about when drafting statements on human rights in the future. All the best, Lisa ________________________________ From: anja [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Tue 15/09/2009 09:47 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Gender DC support for IGC statement on rights Dear all, I'm happy to let you know that the Gender DC has agreed to support the IGC statement on rights, even though the group felt it was problematic that such a long statement on rights did not contain any references to women's rights. As was pointed out during the discussion within the group, "the Gender DC sees women's human rights as central to the IG discourse and states have a special duty to address women's exclusion and their rights in relation to the Internet and freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development, respectively". In recognition of the importance of civil society interventions on rights, the DC decided to endorse the IGC statement as it stands anyways, but also expressed the hope that the above mentioned concerns will receive explicit attention in future statements. Best wishes, Anja ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 5171 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 05:42:26 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:12:26 -0430 Subject: [governance] Gender DC support for IGC statement on rights In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E84@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <189b361b94226d4bad0d7198b17b9a79@cis-india.org> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E84@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AAF6182.6040905@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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 15 06:43:49 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:43:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Gender DC support for IGC statement on rights In-Reply-To: <4AAF6182.6040905@gmail.com> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <189b361b94226d4bad0d7198b17b9a79@cis-india.org> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E84@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AAF6182.6040905@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Not only, as Ginger said, the statement originated from IGC -- which focus is general -- and not from a given DC, but also it doesn't put forward any particular Convention or Covenant. On the contrary, it refers to "the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments", which obviously include CEDAW and CRC, as well as other specific Conventions. When I've asked not to name the two Covenants, ICESCR and ICCPR, in the statement, it was precisely in order to avoid this request for inclusion of a "shopping list": similarly to Gender DC asking for reference to CEDAW and protection of children on line DC asking for CRC mention, a DC on people with disabilities would request CRPD, and so on (list of instruments at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/). The other reason has been raised on the FoE coalition mailing list: when we start identifying texts, we have to be precise on their status (a Declaration such as UDHR is not legally binding, while a Convention is for States who has ratified it). The result is that the final statement could have been better written, and in any case the last additions have only added confusions which, fortunately, are not that crucial given the statement, its objectives, and the context where it will be presented. But there is a double lesson to learn here for all of us: 1/ Keep the general interest objective higher than specific interests, especially when we're forced to progress step by step. 2/ Refrain from making additions that don't really bring anything to a statement, and on the contrary reduce its clarity. Best, Meryem Le 15 sept. 09 à 11:42, Ginger Paque a écrit : > Hi Lisa and Anja, > > I understand the concerns raised, but I would like to raise > another--who are we writing the statement for? Personally, I think > we write the statement for the members of the IGC. We should draft > it for our concerns, not because we want other groups to sign on. I > think we risk diffusing down our focus if we are writing a > statement with a view towards other possible signatories. We > already have to reconcile many viewpoint within the IGC. > > I am glad to have others to support our statements. But we need to > write them from the IGC viewpoint. I would prefer that if a group > does not agree with our statement, they write their own statement > with their particular emphasis, and the IGC or I as an individual > have the possibility to endorse it or not. > > HOWEVER; people who are interested particularly in child safety, > gender, persons with disabilities can legitimately raise those > concerns here, and they should be discussed and included or not in > the draft based on the the particular statement's purpose. > > I hope I was clear that this does not indicate a lack of support > for the mentioned issues. It is a matter of focus. > > Thanks, Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: >> >> Thanks Anja. The Internet Rights and Principles coalition and >> Freedom of Expression Online coalition have also agreed to support >> the statement. The A2K coalition expressed interest, but I don't >> think they had enough time to discuss, similarly for the Privacy >> coalition. The Protection of children online coalition raised >> cimilar points to the gender coalition. Although they agree with >> everything in the statement, they felt it wasn't appropriate for >> them to sign as it doesn't explicitly mention the rights of >> children. I think that this is something that we need to think >> about when drafting statements on human rights in the future. All >> the best, Lisa ________________________________ From: anja >> [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Tue 15/09/2009 09:47 To: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Gender DC support >> for IGC statement on rights Dear all, I'm happy to let you know >> that the Gender DC has agreed to support the IGC statement on >> rights, even though the group felt it was problematic that such a >> long statement on rights did not contain any references to women's >> rights. As was pointed out during the discussion within the group, >> "the Gender DC sees women's human rights as central to the IG >> discourse and states have a special duty to address women's >> exclusion and their rights in relation to the Internet and freedom >> of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and >> development, respectively". In recognition of the importance of >> civil society interventions on rights, the DC decided to endorse >> the IGC statement as it stands anyways, but also expressed the >> hope that the above mentioned concerns will receive explicit >> attention in future statements. Best wishes, Anja >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list >> information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/ >> governance >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list >> information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/ >> governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Tue Sep 15 06:49:48 2009 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact In-Reply-To: <4AAF4C63.5090805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <782604.87549.qm@web27808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear all,   I am agreeing with Jeremy ,there is the great importance of IGF works since it has successfully led such inclusive and open discussions. The survey was also inspiring.... In Peace, GATETE Jean-Yves --- En date de : Mar 15.9.09, Ginger Paque a écrit : De: Ginger Paque Objet: Re: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mardi 15 Septembre 2009, 10h12 Michael and Jeremy, Thanks very much for your comments. This is a dilemma we faced in formulating the questionnaire. I invite you all to make your comments of this or any other kind on the survey in the last 3 open-ended questions. Your suggestions and additional comments are very valuable, and we will take them into account. We appreciate your time in making any observations or additional points. Thanks very much to everyone who participates in the survey! Best, Ginger Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 15/09/2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: Rather the significance of the IGF should be seen in terms of how it has directly and indirectly contributed to the creation of a basis for concensus, a language for discussion, a (suitable) cadre of informed people to carry on the discussion (it is here where I have my issues with the current IGF but I won't go into those further at this point), the provision of a venue for the undertaking of the discussions and so on and so on.  None of this is particularly "national" (in fact little of it is likely to be national which is the point I think of transnational agencies) and little of it is likely to be visible as concrete "impacts" (or even outputs--which is what is currently being discussed in the form of possible IGF "recommendations" etc.). I mostly agree.  In my view the questions were too focussed on the extent to which the IGF successfully facilitates discussion and produces understanding on discrete policy issues such as freedom of expression, access to knowledge, etc, and omits to consider higher-level meta-discussion of Internet governance arrangements. -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Tue Sep 15 09:16:39 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:16:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC Message-ID: <701af9f70909150616la9df9b5y7484c30877d76cf4@mail.gmail.com> Dear Members, As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary no 3 on The Post-JPA Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, there has been discussion amongst the European Governments and participants about the role of ICANN and more accountability of it in terms of Internet Governance Forum. There has a need been identified for creation of a "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its structure here more sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the ICANN related issues more strategically, tactically with a multistakeholder participation within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not within this context but then realizing that although ICANNs constitutional documents and by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant international organisations and to carry out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law, there are no related formal accountability arrangements and this can be the first step to create this process. IGF process needs to be kept separate but interconnected with ICANN (though this comment is still very vague). Your suggestions on this proposal would be really useful and I am circulating this to other IG related lists for input and participation. -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 10:22:40 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:22:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Gender DC support for IGC statement on rights In-Reply-To: <189b361b94226d4bad0d7198b17b9a79@cis-india.org> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <189b361b94226d4bad0d7198b17b9a79@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70909150722v3823a1ecm6c689c933bdec0ed@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anja and Lisa, I think that the IGC statement of rights is by default in support of the various Civil Society roles and objectives by default including human rights in general and with respect to Internet, gender, youth, child safety issues, development etc. I also feel since the IGC is a collective voice of the Civil Society and continues to be open to participation and is fully inclusive, this can be acceptable in both concretely and in its spirit. There might not be a need to segment or break down the combined foundation blocks to specific issues and rights supporting objectives. I believe the IGC and the members that contributed with your kind self to the statement have by default included this realization and continued understanding and these are the foundation of our Civil Society efforts and have been extended to the IGF secretariat thereof. On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:47 AM, anja wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm happy to let you know that the Gender DC has agreed to support the IGC > statement on rights, even though the group felt it was problematic that > such a long statement on rights did not contain any references to women's > rights. > > As was pointed out during the discussion within the group, "the Gender DC > sees women's human rights as central to the IG discourse and states have a > special duty to address women's exclusion and their rights in relation to > the Internet and freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, > education and development, respectively". > > In recognition of the importance of civil society interventions on rights, > the DC decided to endorse the IGC statement as it stands anyways, but also > expressed the hope that the above mentioned concerns will receive explicit > attention in future statements. > > Best wishes, > Anja > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Sep 15 12:08:32 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909150616la9df9b5y7484c30877d76cf4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <672093.3503.qm@web110102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Interesting. ICANN puts up a public forum dealing with Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability and not a single member of this community posts any comments whatsoever. Instead, community members tell us about plenary activities that are held that still don't result in any meaningful comments on accountability being put through directly to ICANN in a timely fashion. If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one would think that you would be conveying your concerns directly to ICANN when the opportunity presented itself. Comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.org until 25 September. --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > From: Fouad Bajwa > Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 9:16 AM > Dear Members, > > As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary no 3 on > The Post-JPA > Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, there > has been > discussion amongst the European Governments and > participants about the > role of ICANN and more accountability of it in terms of > Internet > Governance Forum. There has a need been identified for > creation of a > "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and > International > Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its structure here > more > sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the ICANN > related issues > more strategically, tactically with a multistakeholder > participation > within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not within this > context but > then realizing that  although ICANNs constitutional > documents and > by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant > international > organisations and to carry out its activities in conformity > with > relevant principles of international law and applicable > international > conventions and local law, there are no related formal > accountability > arrangements and this can be the first step to create this > process. > > IGF process needs to be kept separate but interconnected > with ICANN > (though this comment is still very vague). > > Your suggestions on this proposal would be really useful > and I am > circulating this to other IG related lists for input and > participation. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 12:23:09 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:23:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Live coverage open consultations Message-ID: Dear all, As you might know the Open Consultations will take place tomorrow. The agenda will be devoted to discussing the Sharm El Sheikh IGF, in terms of the schedule of main sessions and parallel meetings. It will also raise the issue of remote participation, which is very important to potencialize the impact of the IGF and to bring more diversity to the meeting. Just like it happend on the last open consultations, the Remote Participation Working Group will be covering the Open Consultations, through liveblog, http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=bb6812f16e/height=550/width=470 and through Twitter: @igfremote If you want to comment on the debates,please use the hashtag #IGFgover so your tweets will be added automatically to the liveblog. The Open Consultations start tomorrow (Wednesday) at 09:00 (Geneva Time – GMT +2) Best regards Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- 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 Tue Sep 15 12:40:07 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:40:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and In-Reply-To: <672093.3503.qm@web110102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <701af9f70909150616la9df9b5y7484c30877d76cf4@mail.gmail.com> <672093.3503.qm@web110102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: With my humble opinion, in any community, rules, principles and standards exists which must be taken into account. ICANN with its rules, its principles and its standards managed within the various constituencies. I can be overhanging in this lecture.But his my view and that concerne myself. Baudouin 2009/9/15 Danny Younger > Interesting. ICANN puts up a public forum dealing with Proposed Bylaw > Changes to Improve Accountability and not a single member of this community > posts any comments whatsoever. Instead, community members tell us about > plenary activities that are held that still don't result in any meaningful > comments on accountability being put through directly to ICANN in a timely > fashion. > > If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one would think that you > would be conveying your concerns directly to ICANN when the opportunity > presented itself. Comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.orguntil 25 September. > > > > > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > From: Fouad Bajwa > > Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and > International Conformity - IAIC > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 9:16 AM > > Dear Members, > > > > As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary no 3 on > > The Post-JPA > > Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, there > > has been > > discussion amongst the European Governments and > > participants about the > > role of ICANN and more accountability of it in terms of > > Internet > > Governance Forum. There has a need been identified for > > creation of a > > "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and > > International > > Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its structure here > > more > > sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the ICANN > > related issues > > more strategically, tactically with a multistakeholder > > participation > > within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not within this > > context but > > then realizing that although ICANNs constitutional > > documents and > > by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant > > international > > organisations and to carry out its activities in conformity > > with > > relevant principles of international law and applicable > > international > > conventions and local law, there are no related formal > > accountability > > arrangements and this can be the first step to create this > > process. > > > > IGF process needs to be kept separate but interconnected > > with ICANN > > (though this comment is still very vague). > > > > Your suggestions on this proposal would be really useful > > and I am > > circulating this to other IG related lists for input and > > participation. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 +243811980914 email:b.schombe at gmail.com blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr blog: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 avri at acm.org Tue Sep 15 17:51:38 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:51:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC In-Reply-To: <672093.3503.qm@web110102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <672093.3503.qm@web110102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: hi, i am planning to, ad it is a good idea. but like many people, i rarely get comments in befoe the last day. thanks for the reminder. when i saw your note i had moment's panic thinking i had missed the deadline. a. On 15 Sep 2009, at 18:08, Danny Younger wrote: > Interesting. ICANN puts up a public forum dealing with Proposed > Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability and not a single member of > this community posts any comments whatsoever. Instead, community > members tell us about plenary activities that are held that still > don't result in any meaningful comments on accountability being put > through directly to ICANN in a timely fashion. > > If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one would think that > you would be conveying your concerns directly to ICANN when the > opportunity presented itself. Comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.org > until 25 September. > > > > > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> From: Fouad Bajwa >> Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability >> and International Conformity - IAIC >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 9:16 AM >> Dear Members, >> >> As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary no 3 on >> The Post-JPA >> Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, there >> has been >> discussion amongst the European Governments and >> participants about the >> role of ICANN and more accountability of it in terms of >> Internet >> Governance Forum. There has a need been identified for >> creation of a >> "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and >> International >> Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its structure here >> more >> sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the ICANN >> related issues >> more strategically, tactically with a multistakeholder >> participation >> within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not within this >> context but >> then realizing that although ICANNs constitutional >> documents and >> by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant >> international >> organisations and to carry out its activities in conformity >> with >> relevant principles of international law and applicable >> international >> conventions and local law, there are no related formal >> accountability >> arrangements and this can be the first step to create this >> process. >> >> IGF process needs to be kept separate but interconnected >> with ICANN >> (though this comment is still very vague). >> >> Your suggestions on this proposal would be really useful >> and I am >> circulating this to other IG related lists for input and >> participation. >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Sep 15 18:08:46 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <332581.62681.qm@web110116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hi Avri, There are many legitimate reasons for delaying comments until the last moment. In this particular case, those of us that follow accountability issues understand that the first real test of ICANN's current Independent Review Process comes next Monday 21 September when the .xxx dispute (the ICMregistry-versus-ICANN case filed on 6 June 2008) is heard by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in NYC. My own view is that it makes little sense to amend the bylaws to create an Independent Review Tribunal as an accountability mechanism when we haven't even had a chance to analyze whether the current IRP works sufficiently or is somehow deficient. -- danny -- --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Avri Doria wrote: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC > To: "Governance/IGC List" > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 5:51 PM > hi, > > i am planning to, ad it is a good idea. > > but like many people,  i rarely get comments in befoe > the last day. > > thanks for the reminder. when i saw your note i had > moment's panic thinking i had missed the deadline. > > a. > > > On 15 Sep 2009, at 18:08, Danny Younger wrote: > > > Interesting.  ICANN puts up a public forum > dealing with Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve > Accountability and not a single member of this community > posts any comments whatsoever.  Instead, community > members tell us about plenary activities that are held that > still don't result in any meaningful comments on > accountability being put through directly to ICANN in a > timely fashion. > > > > If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one > would think that you would be conveying your concerns > directly to ICANN when the opportunity presented > itself.  Comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.org > until 25 September. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > > >> From: Fouad Bajwa > >> Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN > Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 9:16 AM > >> Dear Members, > >> > >> As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary > no 3 on > >> The Post-JPA > >> Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, > there > >> has been > >> discussion amongst the European Governments and > >> participants about the > >> role of ICANN and more accountability of it in > terms of > >> Internet > >> Governance Forum. There has a need been identified > for > >> creation of a > >> "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and > >> International > >> Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its > structure here > >> more > >> sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the > ICANN > >> related issues > >> more strategically, tactically with a > multistakeholder > >> participation > >> within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not > within this > >> context but > >> then realizing that  although ICANNs > constitutional > >> documents and > >> by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant > >> international > >> organisations and to carry out its activities in > conformity > >> with > >> relevant principles of international law and > applicable > >> international > >> conventions and local law, there are no related > formal > >> accountability > >> arrangements and this can be the first step to > create this > >> process. > >> > >> IGF process needs to be kept separate but > interconnected > >> with ICANN > >> (though this comment is still very vague). > >> > >> Your suggestions on this proposal would be really > useful > >> and I am > >> circulating this to other IG related lists for > input and > >> participation. > >> > >> --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 > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 15 18:43:36 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:43:36 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact Message-ID: <1051431.1253054616146.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.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 Tue Sep 15 20:19:24 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC In-Reply-To: <332581.62681.qm@web110116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64063.79804.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think Kuerbis did a fine job here regarding the xxx and accountability; http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/5/26/4200557.html   The only real accountability would be some type of individual/registrant Board members at ICANN.   Latest I heard there was to be an At-Large Board member.  http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/   But then I hear that Denise Michel is going to select them herself.   So while the IRP "imports international" norms (as in rules) ICANN shrinks back to Club mentality in accountability. Meanwhile this Coalition is filled with members from the same club. --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Danny Younger wrote: From: Danny Younger Subject: Re: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 10:08 PM Hi Avri, There are many legitimate reasons for delaying comments until the last moment.  In this particular case, those of us that follow accountability issues understand that the first real test of ICANN's current Independent Review Process comes next Monday 21 September when the .xxx dispute (the ICMregistry-versus-ICANN case filed on 6 June 2008) is heard by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in NYC.  My own view is that it makes little sense to amend the bylaws to create an Independent Review Tribunal as an accountability mechanism when we haven't even had a chance to analyze whether the current IRP works sufficiently or is somehow deficient. -- danny -- --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Avri Doria wrote: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC > To: "Governance/IGC List" > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 5:51 PM > hi, > > i am planning to, ad it is a good idea. > > but like many people,  i rarely get comments in befoe > the last day. > > thanks for the reminder. when i saw your note i had > moment's panic thinking i had missed the deadline. > > a. > > > On 15 Sep 2009, at 18:08, Danny Younger wrote: > > > Interesting.  ICANN puts up a public forum > dealing with Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve > Accountability and not a single member of this community > posts any comments whatsoever.  Instead, community > members tell us about plenary activities that are held that > still don't result in any meaningful comments on > accountability being put through directly to ICANN in a > timely fashion. > > > > If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one > would think that you would be conveying your concerns > directly to ICANN when the opportunity presented > itself.  Comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.org > until 25 September. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > > >> From: Fouad Bajwa > >> Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN > Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 9:16 AM > >> Dear Members, > >> > >> As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary > no 3 on > >> The Post-JPA > >> Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, > there > >> has been > >> discussion amongst the European Governments and > >> participants about the > >> role of ICANN and more accountability of it in > terms of > >> Internet > >> Governance Forum. There has a need been identified > for > >> creation of a > >> "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and > >> International > >> Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its > structure here > >> more > >> sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the > ICANN > >> related issues > >> more strategically, tactically with a > multistakeholder > >> participation > >> within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not > within this > >> context but > >> then realizing that  although ICANNs > constitutional > >> documents and > >> by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant > >> international > >> organisations and to carry out its activities in > conformity > >> with > >> relevant principles of international law and > applicable > >> international > >> conventions and local law, there are no related > formal > >> accountability > >> arrangements and this can be the first step to > create this > >> process. > >> > >> IGF process needs to be kept separate but > interconnected > >> with ICANN > >> (though this comment is still very vague). > >> > >> Your suggestions on this proposal would be really > useful > >> and I am > >> circulating this to other IG related lists for > input and > >> participation. > >> > >> --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 > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 15 20:35:58 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact Paid for by?? In-Reply-To: <4AAF4C63.5090805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <448613.84651.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I missed something again.  This questionaire was written by whom?   Clearly AT&T paid for this questionaire.  So who did they pay?   One thing is obvious.  We do not so much need a "who are you that I am talking to"  we need a "who is paying you to talk to me". --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 8:12 AM Michael and Jeremy, Thanks very much for your comments. This is a dilemma we faced in formulating the questionnaire. I invite you all to make your comments of this or any other kind on the survey in the last 3 open-ended questions. Your suggestions and additional comments are very valuable, and we will take them into account. We appreciate your time in making any observations or additional points. Thanks very much to everyone who participates in the survey! Best, Ginger Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 15/09/2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: Rather the significance of the IGF should be seen in terms of how it has directly and indirectly contributed to the creation of a basis for concensus, a language for discussion, a (suitable) cadre of informed people to carry on the discussion (it is here where I have my issues with the current IGF but I won't go into those further at this point), the provision of a venue for the undertaking of the discussions and so on and so on.  None of this is particularly "national" (in fact little of it is likely to be national which is the point I think of transnational agencies) and little of it is likely to be visible as concrete "impacts" (or even outputs--which is what is currently being discussed in the form of possible IGF "recommendations" etc.). I mostly agree.  In my view the questions were too focussed on the extent to which the IGF successfully facilitates discussion and produces understanding on discrete policy issues such as freedom of expression, access to knowledge, etc, and omits to consider higher-level meta-discussion of Internet governance arrangements. -----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 Tue Sep 15 22:02:40 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: 672093.3503.qm@web110102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Message-ID: Nice to hear from you Dan! Ladies & Gentleman if you don't know Danny Younger, He's probably the single-most-hardest-working advocate for the Internet. it's been an honor to have know him through the years, and a brilliant asset on to have on your side. Re.: > My own view is that it makes little sense to amend the bylaws to create an >Independent Review Tribunal as an accountability mechanism when we haven't >even had a chance to analyze whether the current IRP works sufficiently or is >somehow deficient. IHMO: Icann is swinging full bore to Wall Street, we will digest ICMregistry's .xxx registry because the will of Wall Street commands it. For you Others Folks out there, wake up, Icann has become and is now, nothing more than a 'Franchise Tax board'. [It issues Franchises and collects Taxes] And I'll state again as I did years ago when I first met Mr. Younger: It's Taxation *without* Representation. And Wall Street loves Franchises: dot.xxx, dot.whatever they can get their hands on, and if its not stopped, someday the Net will be completely owned by the Global Financial Markets. - D, hope all is well, hope you had a great summer, keep up the watchful eye! 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 04:38:22 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:08:22 -0430 Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote Message-ID: <4AB0A3FE.5020608@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 Sep 16 04:44:28 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:14:28 -0430 Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact In-Reply-To: <448613.84651.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <448613.84651.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AB0A56C.1040303@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 Sep 16 06:06:56 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:36:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment Message-ID: <4AB0B8C0.60900@gmail.com> The short version of what you are voting on: If you vote Yes, you accept the following change (summary). If you vote No, you reject the proposal. 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 elegible 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. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 16 07:02:15 2009 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:02:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] slightly late endorsement of IGC statement Message-ID: <4d976d8e0909160402y2240bd5al648cc854e1036642@mail.gmail.com> Dear IGC The Internet Rights and Principles coalition would like to endorse the IGC statement stressing the importance of Human Rights Ginger just read. We agreed to do so in our workshop last sunday, but i forgot to send our endorsement. Thanks Max < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. —----------------------Margaret Mead < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > Dr. Max Senges Chair Internet Rights and Principles Coalition www.internetrightsandprinciples.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 16 08:13:08 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:13:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? References: <701af9f70909150624s70779c50u4b2b907d29165a4e@mail.gmail.com> <780669B1-B4A9-4DA9-BF0E-1F47CD0904AF@ipjustice.org> <701af9f70909160229m4e4eeb6vb8ee94dec8a8fa70@mail.gmail.com> <2273DA81-463D-4153-AFDC-EF32E02D44BB@ltu.se> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871951D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My understanding of an "enhanced accountability mechanism" is that it has several components. There is no one single master-slave-relationship. It is an interactive mechanism where various components offers various channels to turn input into impact. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Non-Commercial User Constituency im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mi 16.09.2009 13:14 An: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Betreff: Re: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? On 16 Sep 2009, at 12:24, McTim wrote: > If you want to have an > impact on ICANN, you can't do it via the IGF. well that is a bit strong. certainly one can have the most direct effect by participating in ICANN and its vehicles. but that does not mean that what goes on in the IGF is not seen by ICANN or that ICANN ignores it. it most certainly can have an effect, albeit it indirect. 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 Wed Sep 16 09:42:19 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote/improper In-Reply-To: <4AB0A3FE.5020608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <111211.76612.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is bad protocal.  Extending a vote so that you get a referendum of sorts is a tampering with the vote. If the amendment fails then it fails. It is not proper to change the rules in mid process.  Could you please site the authority for extending the or a vote. --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 8:38 AM In order for a Charter amendment vote to be valid, we need almost every single voting member to exercise their right to vote. That means if you are not ill or without an Internet connection, we need you to vote. If you have not voted, please do so NOW. A charter amendment is designed to be a serious task. This requires the input of all members. To facilitate your vote, we have now extended the voting process for another 10 days. Please vote now so that you do not forget! Best, Ginger -----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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 09:48:08 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:18:08 -0430 Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote In-Reply-To: <111211.76612.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <111211.76612.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AB0EC98.2070405@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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 16 09:44:30 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment In-Reply-To: <4AB0B8C0.60900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <624741.40296.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> If you did not vote by the deadline you rejected the proposal. Ginger you are invalidating the vote. By golly goodness this is a list on governance.  Let us at least have an ""IMPACT"" by example. --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment To: "gover >> "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'"" Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 10:06 AM The short version of what you are voting on: If you vote Yes, you accept the following change (summary). If you vote No, you reject the proposal. 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 elegible 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. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int Wed Sep 16 09:58:26 2009 From: Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int (HIBBARD Lee) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:58:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants focus on Human Rights first in the EuroDIG and IGF In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909140409k63d46033pe266eeddd46376e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70909140409k63d46033pe266eeddd46376e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC0457BA0A@OBELIX.key.coe.int> Please take note that it was was MEP Catherine Trautmann and not Mrs Redding who took part in EuroDIG Lee Hibbard -----Original Message----- From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Monday 14 September 2009 13:10 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants focus on Human Rights first in the EuroDIG and IGF IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at the European Broadcasting Union 2: Mrs. Redding emphasizes on Network Neutrality to be brought into more discussion and in particularly with regards to governance. We are confronted by the questions for NN and we would like to bring it into focus of all our discussions on IG. Alun Michael says that the rest of the parliamentarians have commented that we have to take Internet Governance as seriously as Civil Society. Serbian member believes that it will be a slow process like any other international institutional and policy change process but it will happen. COE says that the internet will not work without improving broadband access and in particular Citizen access otherwise it no government will be able to work. Alun says that similar issues were discussed in the African IGF. Mrs. Redding says: 1. IGF is a very important experience and process. There is something true that it is a process. Internet leads the rules of the world, democracy, new regulations of the world and I hope that the next two IGFs can show that there is an issue and positive IGF towards these issues. 2. We need to change international institutions, increase and enforce participation of the people in the international institutions. - These issues will also be discussed in the next two days and workshops to be underway after lunch and tomorrow. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at > the European Broadcasting Union: > > During the early afternoon session on the first day currently in > progress titled "Roundtable of European parliamentary perspectives > regarding Internet governance" the Council of Europe has emphasized > that its first and foremost objective with regards to Internet > Governance in Europe is focusing and strengthening the Human Rights > with regards to the Internet. > > EU Parliament Member Mrs. Redding has commented that the role of COE > is very important for the European Union but we should remember that > we need faster decision making with regards to IG and we cannot turn > into an organization as large as the UN. > > > More underway..............please follow the discussion live at: > > http://www.eurodig.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 > -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 16 09:57:56 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? Message-ID: <902488.49891.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Wolfgang,   I am very upbeat about this hopeful development. You could say I am down on it, but most would not understand.   You understanding is what I want to understand.  Has this been reduced to writing someplace or is your understanding from casual verbal exchanges? --- On Wed, 9/16/09, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? To: "Avri Doria" , NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 12:13 PM My understanding of an "enhanced accountability mechanism" is that it has several components. There is no one single master-slave-relationship. It is an interactive mechanism where various components offers various channels to turn input into impact. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Non-Commercial User Constituency im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mi 16.09.2009 13:14 An: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Betreff: Re: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? On 16 Sep 2009, at 12:24, McTim wrote: > If you want to have an > impact on ICANN, you can't do it via the IGF. well that is a bit strong. certainly one can have the most direct effect by participating in ICANN and its vehicles. but that does not mean that what goes on in the IGF is not seen by ICANN or that ICANN ignores it. it most certainly can have an effect, albeit it indirect. 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 10:02:25 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:02:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants In-Reply-To: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC0457BA0A@OBELIX.key.coe.int> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70909140409k63d46033pe266eeddd46376e5@mail.gmail.com> <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC0457BA0A@OBELIX.key.coe.int> Message-ID: <701af9f70909160702wb6545f9ga1d12c4835231c5f@mail.gmail.com> Dear Lee, My baddy, it was MEP Catherine Trautmann and it was accidental as I was discussing Mrs. Redding's earlier ICANN-JPA statements with my neighbour from the EC. Apologies please. On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:58 PM, HIBBARD Lee wrote: > > Please take note that it was was MEP Catherine Trautmann and not Mrs > Redding who took part in EuroDIG > > Lee Hibbard > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday 14 September 2009 13:10 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants > focus on Human Rights first in the EuroDIG and IGF > > >  IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at > the European Broadcasting Union 2: > > Mrs. Redding emphasizes on Network Neutrality to be brought into more > discussion and in particularly with regards to governance. We are > confronted by the questions for NN and we would like to bring it into > focus of all our discussions on IG. Alun Michael says that the rest of > the parliamentarians have commented that we have to take Internet > Governance as seriously as Civil Society. Serbian member believes that > it will be a slow process like any other international institutional > and policy change process but it will happen. > > COE says that the internet will not work without improving broadband > access and in particular Citizen access otherwise it no government > will be able to work. Alun says that similar issues were discussed in > the African IGF. > > Mrs. Redding says: > 1. IGF is a very important experience and process. There is something > true that it is a process. Internet leads the rules of the world, > democracy, new regulations of the world and I hope that the next two > IGFs can show that there is an issue and positive IGF towards these > issues. > > 2. We need to change international institutions, increase and enforce > participation of the people in the international institutions. > > - These issues will also be discussed in the next two days and > workshops to be underway after lunch and tomorrow. > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: >> IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at >> the European Broadcasting Union: >> >> During the early afternoon session on the first day currently in >> progress titled "Roundtable of European parliamentary perspectives >> regarding Internet governance" the Council of Europe has emphasized >> that its first and foremost objective with regards to Internet >> Governance in Europe is focusing and strengthening the Human Rights >> with regards to the Internet. >> >> EU Parliament Member Mrs. Redding has commented that the role of COE >> is very important for the European Union but we should remember that >> we need faster decision making with regards to IG and we cannot turn >> into an organization as large as the UN. >> >> >> More underway..............please follow the discussion live at: >> >> http://www.eurodig.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 >> > > > > -- > 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 avri at psg.com Wed Sep 16 10:09:09 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:09:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment In-Reply-To: <624741.40296.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <624741.40296.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9808D5AA-6261-464F-9D14-2F3F835BA76D@psg.com> On 16 Sep 2009, at 15:44, Eric Dierker wrote: > f you did not vote by the deadline you rejected the proposal. > Ginger you are invalidating the vote. > By golly goodness this is a list on governance. Let us at least > have an ""IMPACT"" by example. Actually votes are extended all the time. If for any reason there is the belief that not everyone had the chance to vote it is fine tradition in democracies to extend the vote to give more people time. I am also sure that you will find nothing in the charter that declares the time for a vote of a prohibition against extending votes. these things are at the discretion of the coordinators. golly gee, you have been arguing for democracy and now you want to cut the vote off for anyone who had problems getting the ballot. 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 Wed Sep 16 10:11:39 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote In-Reply-To: <4AB0EC98.2070405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <159357.6274.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is fallacious. It favors the charter amendment without question. No votes no Charter amendment.  There has been no indication of the problems/reasons you give.  The problems and reasons you give were and are totally foreseeable in this age, yet they have not ocurred.   Did Avri and Derrick put their "consultations" in writing?  Did they give general information or did they apply it to this case?  Were these all done in private?  Have the votes been in anyway tallied yet? Has their been a private petitioner asking in private to extend?   Ginger, I would hope the world is watching.  I would hope we have an "impact" here.  It is important to many people these things be done giving the utmost respect to decorum and openness and transparency.  Our example can have a good or bad impact. --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 1:48 PM Dear Eric and all, To ensure that this is proper election protocol, Ian and I consulted with Derrick Cogburn (votiing) and Avri (charter rules) who have assured us that in an email ballot, given problems of delivery, timing and technical problems, scheduling and time zones, this is perfectly appropriate in this case. It does not favor one side or the other, but gives all voters increased opportunity to participate at their convenience. Regards, Eric Dierker wrote: This is bad protocal.  Extending a vote so that you get a referendum of sorts is a tampering with the vote. If the amendment fails then it fails. It is not proper to change the rules in mid process.  Could you please site the authority for extending the or a vote. --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 8:38 AM In order for a Charter amendment vote to be valid, we need almost every single voting member to exercise their right to vote. That means if you are not ill or without an Internet connection, we need you to vote. If you have not voted, please do so NOW. A charter amendment is designed to be a serious task. This requires the input of all members. To facilitate your vote, we have now extended the voting process for another 10 days. Please vote now so that you do not forget! Best, Ginger -----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 glaser at nic.br Wed Sep 16 10:25:57 2009 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:25:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment In-Reply-To: <4AB0B8C0.60900@gmail.com> References: <4AB0B8C0.60900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AB0F575.2030500@nic.br> I vote => YES ============================================= Ginger Paque wrote: > The short version of what you are voting on: If you vote Yes, you > accept the following change (summary). If you vote No, you reject the > proposal. > > 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 > elegible > 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. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 16 10:19:19 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment In-Reply-To: <9808D5AA-6261-464F-9D14-2F3F835BA76D@psg.com> Message-ID: <946845.63036.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Avri,   Cite one example of a vote being extended in a Democracy --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment To: "Governance/IGC List" Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 2:09 PM On 16 Sep 2009, at 15:44, Eric Dierker wrote: > f you did not vote by the deadline you rejected the proposal. > Ginger you are invalidating the vote. > By golly goodness this is a list on governance.  Let us at least have an ""IMPACT"" by example. Actually votes are extended all the time. If for any reason there is the belief that not everyone had the chance to vote it is fine tradition in democracies to extend the vote to give more people time. I am also sure that you will find nothing in the charter that declares the time for a vote of a prohibition against extending votes.  these things are at the discretion of the coordinators. golly gee, you have been arguing for democracy and now you want to cut the vote off for anyone who had problems getting the ballot. 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 wcurrie at apc.org Wed Sep 16 11:12:21 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:12:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and In-Reply-To: <332581.62681.qm@web110116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <332581.62681.qm@web110116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AB10055.3040308@apc.org> Good point, Danny. It would be worth pointing that out in submissions to ICANN. APC is planning to make a submission and it would be good if the IGC could say something about the two amendments as well. There are two inter-related problems with the proposed amendments: 1. While the provision for the ICANN community to request for the Board to re-examine a decision is a step forward, there is still no democratic sanction for the Board if the community fundamentally disagrees with a Board decision even after it is re-examined by the Board. The community still does not have the power to dismiss the Board. 2. While the Independent Review Body and the expansion of its functions is a step forward, it still does not address the problem that the Board can ignore its findings and recommendations if the Board determines that the recommendations 'are not in the best interests of ICANN'. Both amendments ultimately depend on the disposition of the Board towards the issue under re-examination or review. Certainly it would be an unwise Board that completely ignores the expressed views of two-thirds of the ICANN community or the reasoned recommendations of senior jurists, but bylaws are not about dispositions, they are to do with fair and reasonable conduct by those in authority. In the event that that is lacking, there needs to be some ultimate sanction such as a power for the ICANN community to dismiss the Board. The ICANN President's Strategy Committee recognised this in its recommendations on accountability when it proposed the establishment of 'an extraordinary mechanism for the community to remove and replace the Board in special circumstances'. This is simple democracy and is a basic feature of all democratic organisations. That it is missing from ICANN's bylaws is a signifier of a lack of accountability and democratic procedure that can not be cured by the current proposed amendments. It is also interesting to note that the EU in its communication on internet governance of 18 June, was of the view that 'one element of an evolution of the current governance system could be the completion of an internal ICANN reform leading to full accontability and transparency'. Unfortunately, inasmuch as these two bylaw amendments are intended to achieve 'full accountability', they fall short. Willie Danny Younger wrote: > Hi Avri, > > There are many legitimate reasons for delaying comments until the last moment. In this particular case, those of us that follow accountability issues understand that the first real test of ICANN's current Independent Review Process comes next Monday 21 September when the .xxx dispute (the ICMregistry-versus-ICANN case filed on 6 June 2008) is heard by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in NYC. > > My own view is that it makes little sense to amend the bylaws to create an Independent Review Tribunal as an accountability mechanism when we haven't even had a chance to analyze whether the current IRP works sufficiently or is somehow deficient. > > -- danny -- > > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Avri Doria wrote: > > >> From: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC >> To: "Governance/IGC List" >> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 5:51 PM >> hi, >> >> i am planning to, ad it is a good idea. >> >> but like many people, i rarely get comments in befoe >> the last day. >> >> thanks for the reminder. when i saw your note i had >> moment's panic thinking i had missed the deadline. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 15 Sep 2009, at 18:08, Danny Younger wrote: >> >> >>> Interesting. ICANN puts up a public forum >>> >> dealing with Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve >> Accountability and not a single member of this community >> posts any comments whatsoever. Instead, community >> members tell us about plenary activities that are held that >> still don't result in any meaningful comments on >> accountability being put through directly to ICANN in a >> timely fashion. >> >>> If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one >>> >> would think that you would be conveying your concerns >> directly to ICANN when the opportunity presented >> itself. Comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.org >> until 25 September. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Fouad Bajwa >>> >> wrote: >> >>>> From: Fouad Bajwa >>>> Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN >>>> >> Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC >> >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 9:16 AM >>>> Dear Members, >>>> >>>> As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary >>>> >> no 3 on >> >>>> The Post-JPA >>>> Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model, >>>> >> there >> >>>> has been >>>> discussion amongst the European Governments and >>>> participants about the >>>> role of ICANN and more accountability of it in >>>> >> terms of >> >>>> Internet >>>> Governance Forum. There has a need been identified >>>> >> for >> >>>> creation of a >>>> "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and >>>> International >>>> Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its >>>> >> structure here >> >>>> more >>>> sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the >>>> >> ICANN >> >>>> related issues >>>> more strategically, tactically with a >>>> >> multistakeholder >> >>>> participation >>>> within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not >>>> >> within this >> >>>> context but >>>> then realizing that although ICANNs >>>> >> constitutional >> >>>> documents and >>>> by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant >>>> international >>>> organisations and to carry out its activities in >>>> >> conformity >> >>>> with >>>> relevant principles of international law and >>>> >> applicable >> >>>> international >>>> conventions and local law, there are no related >>>> >> formal >> >>>> accountability >>>> arrangements and this can be the first step to >>>> >> create this >> >>>> process. >>>> >>>> IGF process needs to be kept separate but >>>> >> interconnected >> >>>> with ICANN >>>> (though this comment is still very vague). >>>> >>>> Your suggestions on this proposal would be really >>>> >> useful >> >>>> and I am >>>> circulating this to other IG related lists for >>>> >> input and >> >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> --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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the >>> >> list: >> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 16 11:26:50 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:26:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote In-Reply-To: <159357.6274.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4AB0EC98.2070405@gmail.com> <159357.6274.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric You are nauseatingly tiring! Do you have inside information that the extension will favour the amendment? How so? Why can it not favour the rejection of the amendment? There are lots of passive members on the list that the "No" block (if there is such a thing) could mobilise to reject the amendment. There are bigger problems then extension of the polling period. So, instead of making it your life's ambition to reply to as many posts as possible to break down the cohesion of the list by disseminating your paralysing venom, please try and focus. It is tiring posters like yourself that are bringing down the list as people avoid posting not to attract and have to deal with the diatribes by the likes of you and others of your coterie. Enough said, and of course you have your right of reply, but I will withhold mine to reply to you. Regards, Rui 2009/9/16 Eric Dierker > This is fallacious. It favors the charter amendment without question. No > votes no Charter amendment. There has been no indication of the > problems/reasons you give. The problems and reasons you give were and are > totally foreseeable in this age, yet they have not ocurred. > > Did Avri and Derrick put their "consultations" in writing? Did they give > general information or did they apply it to this case? Were these all done > in private? Have the votes been in anyway tallied yet? Has their been a > private petitioner asking in private to extend? > > Ginger, I would hope the world is watching. I would hope we have an > "impact" here. It is important to many people these things be done giving > the utmost respect to decorum and openness and transparency. Our example > can have a good or bad impact. > > --- On *Wed, 9/16/09, Ginger Paque * wrote: > > > From: Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote > To: "Eric Dierker" > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 1:48 PM > > > Dear Eric and all, > > To ensure that this is proper election protocol, Ian and I consulted with > Derrick Cogburn (votiing) and Avri (charter rules) who have assured us that > in an email ballot, given problems of delivery, timing and technical > problems, scheduling and time zones, this is perfectly appropriate in this > case. It does not favor one side or the other, but gives all voters > increased opportunity to participate at their convenience. > > Regards, > > > Eric Dierker wrote: > > This is bad protocal. Extending a vote so that you get a referendum of > sorts is a tampering with the vote. If the amendment fails then it fails. It > is not proper to change the rules in mid process.. Could you please site > the authority for extending the or a vote. > > --- On *Wed, 9/16/09, Ginger Paque > * wrote: > > > From: Ginger Paque > Subject: [governance] Extension of Charter Amendment Vote > To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" > > Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 8:38 AM > > In order for a Charter amendment vote to be valid, we need almost every > single voting member to exercise their right to vote. That means if you are > not ill or without an Internet connection, we need you to vote. If you have > not voted, please do so NOW. A charter amendment is designed to be a serious > task. This requires the input of all members. > > To facilitate your vote, we have now extended the voting process for > another 10 days. Please vote now so that you do not forget! > > Best, > Ginger > > > > -----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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 11:30:17 2009 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:30:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants In-Reply-To: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC0457BA0A@OBELIX.key.coe.int> References: <701af9f70909140334k88160b9k204f95a64a11f7e7@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f70909140409k63d46033pe266eeddd46376e5@mail.gmail.com> <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC0457BA0A@OBELIX.key.coe.int> Message-ID: Catherine Trautmann advocate for the Telecom package and especially about article that may make the 3-strike laws not conform with European laws. it was during the vote of the first attempt of 3-strike or HADOPI law in France. for the rest, I think that we should be careful with any statements made by Mrs Reding Rafik 2009/9/16 HIBBARD Lee > > Please take note that it was was MEP Catherine Trautmann and not Mrs > Redding who took part in EuroDIG > > Lee Hibbard > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday 14 September 2009 13:10 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Re: EuroDIG Reporting 1: Council of Europe wants > focus on Human Rights first in the EuroDIG and IGF > > > IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at > the European Broadcasting Union 2: > > Mrs. Redding emphasizes on Network Neutrality to be brought into more > discussion and in particularly with regards to governance. We are > confronted by the questions for NN and we would like to bring it into > focus of all our discussions on IG. Alun Michael says that the rest of > the parliamentarians have commented that we have to take Internet > Governance as seriously as Civil Society. Serbian member believes that > it will be a slow process like any other international institutional > and policy change process but it will happen. > > COE says that the internet will not work without improving broadband > access and in particular Citizen access otherwise it no government > will be able to work. Alun says that similar issues were discussed in > the African IGF. > > Mrs. Redding says: > 1. IGF is a very important experience and process. There is something > true that it is a process. Internet leads the rules of the world, > democracy, new regulations of the world and I hope that the next two > IGFs can show that there is an issue and positive IGF towards these > issues. > > 2. We need to change international institutions, increase and enforce > participation of the people in the international institutions. > > - These issues will also be discussed in the next two days and > workshops to be underway after lunch and tomorrow. > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > IGC CS Reporting from the EuroDIG http://www.eurodig.org in Geneva at > > the European Broadcasting Union: > > > > During the early afternoon session on the first day currently in > > progress titled "Roundtable of European parliamentary perspectives > > regarding Internet governance" the Council of Europe has emphasized > > that its first and foremost objective with regards to Internet > > Governance in Europe is focusing and strengthening the Human Rights > > with regards to the Internet. > > > > EU Parliament Member Mrs. Redding has commented that the role of COE > > is very important for the European Union but we should remember that > > we need faster decision making with regards to IG and we cannot turn > > into an organization as large as the UN. > > > > > > More underway..............please follow the discussion live at: > > > > http://www.eurodig.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 > > > > > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Wed Sep 16 11:31:15 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:31:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter Amendment In-Reply-To: <946845.63036.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <946845.63036.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: don't have time to play gotcha with you right now. and am exceeding my self imposed limit of one message to you per day just google on "voting period extended" " voting extended" etc. i am sure you will find something. but if you have ever paid attention to the news of voting days in almost any country you will have learned that people do it all the time. a. On 16 Sep 2009, at 16:19, Eric Dierker wrote: > Avri, > > Cite one example of a vote being extended in a Democracy > > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Avri Doria wrote: > > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Reminder: What is the proposed Charter > Amendment > To: "Governance/IGC List" > Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 2:09 PM > > > On 16 Sep 2009, at 15:44, Eric Dierker wrote: > > > f you did not vote by the deadline you rejected the proposal. > > Ginger you are invalidating the vote. > > By golly goodness this is a list on governance. Let us at least > have an ""IMPACT"" by example.. > > > Actually votes are extended all the time. > > If for any reason there is the belief that not everyone had the > chance to vote it is fine tradition in democracies to extend the > vote to give more people time. > > I am also sure that you will find nothing in the charter that > declares the time for a vote of a prohibition against extending > votes. these things are at the discretion of the coordinators. > > golly gee, you have been arguing for democracy and now you want to > cut the vote off for anyone who had problems getting the ballot. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 16 16:43:48 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:43:48 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability Message-ID: <20596924.1253133828975.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Yehuda and all, I've been saying essentially what you stated below for nearly 11 years now of ICANN. The direction was clear in early 2000, and seems to be marching steadily in that direction much to my shagrin. -----Original Message----- >From: Yehuda Katz >Sent: Sep 15, 2009 9:02 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability > >Nice to hear from you Dan! >Ladies & Gentleman if you don't know Danny Younger, >He's probably the single-most-hardest-working advocate for the Internet. >it's been an honor to have know him through the years, and a brilliant asset on >to have on your side. > >Re.: >> My own view is that it makes little sense to amend the bylaws to create an >>Independent Review Tribunal as an accountability mechanism when we haven't >>even had a chance to analyze whether the current IRP works sufficiently or is >>somehow deficient. > >IHMO: > >Icann is swinging full bore to Wall Street, we will digest ICMregistry's .xxx >registry because the will of Wall Street commands it. > >For you Others Folks out there, wake up, Icann has become and is now, nothing >more than a 'Franchise Tax board'. >[It issues Franchises and collects Taxes] > >And I'll state again as I did years ago when I first met Mr. Younger: >It's Taxation *without* Representation. > >And Wall Street loves Franchises: dot.xxx, dot.whatever they can get their >hands on, and if its not stopped, someday the Net will be completely owned by >the Global Financial Markets. > >- > >D, hope all is well, hope you had a great summer, keep up the watchful eye! > >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 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 Wed Sep 16 16:50:21 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:50:21 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and Message-ID: <6182086.1253134221645.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.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 muguet at mdpi.net Wed Sep 16 18:05:21 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:05:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update : Workshop 18 Sept @ITU / Ateler 18 sept @UIT In-Reply-To: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> References: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <4AB16121.6010704@mdpi.net> Dear Friends / Chers Amis The site has been updated The title of the workshop has been modified to better fit its content. It is not a technical expert meeting with many gory technical details and equations. * Brainstorming Workshop : Next Generation Namespace Infrastructure* and accordingly the *Poster *( pdf ) The topic of the workshop remains the same The *Program* is available There have been many questions about this Room G1. It is a brand new room that is not indicated yet on the ITU web site. Detailed informations how to get there, are now available : **Venue * * See you next Friday. All the best Francis > > Englsh / Français > > *The registration is now open. > Les inscriptions sont maintenant ouvertes. > * > Attached below, the workshop poster > > > > > > > *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. * > > > > *Atelier dans le cadre d'une expertise * > > * * > > * *La situation actuelle concernant le Système des Noms de Domaine > (DNS) suscite un intérêt de plus en plus grand, alors que > l'expiration, en Septembre prochain, de l' * accord de projet conjoint > (JPA)* > ,entre > l'ICANN et le Département américain du Commerce, approche. > > ** > > ** ** > > ** *Au lieu de s'engager dans d'âpres débats sur la façon de co-gérer > un quasi-monopole, cet atelier informel est organisé afin d'étudier > s'il existe des solutions techniques pour le développement des futurs > réseaux d'information. Existe-t-il une solution effective pour ouvrir > à la compétition les services de nommage ? * ** > > ** ** > > ** * Cet atelier informel > > est organisé dans le contexte de la mission d'expertise > > qui a été récemment contractée par l'UIT > > auprès du Dr. FrancisMuguet > > , après sa présentation, en Mai dernier, au Forum du SMSI > > : Ouverture à la concurrence de l'infrastructure de l'espace de > nommage > > .*** > > ** ** > > ** *Cette mission d'expert est dans la ligne des décisions du dernier > Conseil de l'UIT Groupe de travail sur le SMSI, > > où l'UIT > > a été priée d'étudier l'évolution de l'internet du futur. * ** > > ** ** > > ** * L'atelier > > informel d'expertise est hébergé au siège de l'UIT, le vendredi 18 > Septembre, le plaçant après le Dialogue européen sur la gouvernance de > l'Internet > > (Lundi 14 - Mardi 15. Septembre) et la réunion de planification de > l'IGF > > (Mercredi 16 - Jeudi 17 Septembre) à Genève L'atelier, > > organisé par Francis Muguet > , > va inclure dans la matinée, des exposés et une table ronde, et dans > l'après-midi, des discussions ouvertes.*** > > ** ** > > ** > ** > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 16 20:33:22 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:33:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871951D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <701af9f70909150624s70779c50u4b2b907d29165a4e@mail.gmail.com> <780669B1-B4A9-4DA9-BF0E-1F47CD0904AF@ipjustice.org> <701af9f70909160229m4e4eeb6vb8ee94dec8a8fa70@mail.gmail.com> <2273DA81-463D-4153-AFDC-EF32E02D44BB@ltu.se> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871951D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <002f01ca372e$c33a1f70$49ae5e50$@com.br> I can understand both position. IGF has other focus, but ICANN shall consider the IGF participants as relevant interested groups to whom ICANN should be accountable. 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, September 16, 2009 9:13 AM To: Avri Doria; NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? My understanding of an "enhanced accountability mechanism" is that it has several components. There is no one single master-slave-relationship. It is an interactive mechanism where various components offers various channels to turn input into impact. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Non-Commercial User Constituency im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mi 16.09.2009 13:14 An: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Betreff: Re: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? On 16 Sep 2009, at 12:24, McTim wrote: > If you want to have an > impact on ICANN, you can't do it via the IGF. well that is a bit strong. certainly one can have the most direct effect by participating in ICANN and its vehicles. but that does not mean that what goes on in the IGF is not seen by ICANN or that ICANN ignores it. it most certainly can have an effect, albeit it indirect. 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Sep 16 21:17:36 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: 20596924.1253133828975.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net Message-ID: Hi Jeff, Are you still there in Rifle Colorado? I may be passing your way soon, were builing a new complex at Camp W.G. Williams in Utah, just a stones throw from you. Though I'd check in on the Boys at Wild West Domains and swing by to see you ;-) Anyway here's where will be set'en up : http://www.ut.ngb.army.mil/campwilliams/ The locals are already getting excited! http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/705314456/Utah-will-host-new-19-billion-NSA-spy-center.html Tell the Nurses I'm coming by in a few!!! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 17 06:44:47 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:14:47 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC and Civil Society at the IGF 2009 in Sharm El Sheikh Message-ID: <4AB2131F.1000506@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 b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 08:07:40 2009 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:07:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC and Civil Society at the IGF 2009 in Sharm El In-Reply-To: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> References: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> Message-ID: Very good suggestion, Ginger and I personally follow on remote participation. So the subject is very important also. Baudouin 2009/9/17 Ginger Paque > Once again I thank Lisa and everyone who worked on drafting the IGC > statement which was read into the IGF planning meeting here in Geneva > yesterday. While we need to strategize, and continue our work on several > levels towards including rights in the international agendas, both > specifically and generally, our statement did help keep the issue alive. One > more drop in the bucket. > > With our enthusiasm high for the IGF meeting, I would like to propose that > the IGC and other Civil Society members plan to meet at several points > during the IGF, in order to exchanges ideas, and plan in order to support > each other when appropriate and possible. I suggest that we meet at: > > 8:30 a.m. on Sunday morning before the opening session to see who is where, > plan and prepare. > > After the last session Tuesday, for an update. > > At LUNCH on Wednesday (last day) to sum up. > > I ask for two volunteers to coordinate these meetings. Any volunteers? > > Please reply to this thread, so that those who are not interested can > filter out the emails. I do think we should keep it on the list, because > some will be following on Remote Participation, and may want to know where > CS will be present on panels, workshops and issues. > > 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 > > -- 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 +243811980914 email:b.schombe at gmail.com blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr blog: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 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Thu Sep 17 10:41:55 2009 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:41:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC and Civil Society at the IGF 2009 in Sharm El In-Reply-To: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> References: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> Hi Ginger, Hi all, Being in Egypt at the IGF as an ISOC ambassador and active participant in workshop 106 i'm candidate to volunteer. I arrive on 14/11 1:50 am and depart on 19/11. Best regards, Rudi Vansnick President Internet Society Belgium vzw Voorzitter TIK vzw Board member EURALO (ALAC - ICANN) Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39 GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.isoc.be - www.vansnick.eu Ginger Paque schreef: > Once again I thank Lisa and everyone who worked on drafting the IGC > statement which was read into the IGF planning meeting here in Geneva > yesterday. While we need to strategize, and continue our work on > several levels towards including rights in the international agendas, > both specifically and generally, our statement did help keep the issue > alive. One more drop in the bucket. > > With our enthusiasm high for the IGF meeting, I would like to propose > that the IGC and other Civil Society members plan to meet at several > points during the IGF, in order to exchanges ideas, and plan in order > to support each other when appropriate and possible. I suggest that we > meet at: > > 8:30 a.m. on Sunday morning before the opening session to see who is > where, plan and prepare. > > After the last session Tuesday, for an update. > > At LUNCH on Wednesday (last day) to sum up. > > I ask for two volunteers to coordinate these meetings. Any volunteers? > > Please reply to this thread, so that those who are not interested can > filter out the emails. I do think we should keep it on the list, > because some will be following on Remote Participation, and may want > to know where CS will be present on panels, workshops and issues. > > Best, Ginger > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.103/2378 - Release Date: 09/17/09 06:18:00 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Sep 17 13:55:07 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> Message-ID: <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICANN-smith-coble.pdf ICANN's CEO has been asked to respond by 22 September to three sets of questions posed by the U.S. House Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. The following day (23 Sept.) the Committee is holding a hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition; the Hearing will be webcast -- see http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html Witness Lists have not yet been posted. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 17 18:35:53 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:35:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> So the trademark interests continue to go to the US Congress while bargaining in bad faith within ICANN. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:55 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > > http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICANN-smith-coble.pdf > > ICANN's CEO has been asked to respond by 22 September to three sets of > questions posed by the U.S. House Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts and > Competition Policy. The following day (23 Sept.) the Committee is holding > a hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on > Competition; the Hearing will be webcast -- see > http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html > > Witness Lists have not yet been posted. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 17 19:13:40 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:13:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC and Civil Society at the IGF 2009 in Sharm El In-Reply-To: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> References: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ 8:30 a.m. on Sunday morning before the opening session to see who is where, plan and prepare. And after that, go to the GigaNet symposium, and hear the keynote speech Ronald J. Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, "Beyond Denial: Introducing the Next Generation of Internet Controls" Deibert is Professor and Director of The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. Rohozinski is CEO at Psiphon Inc., Principal and CEO at The SecDev Group, Ottawa, Canada. Symposium Themes 1. What counts as Internet Governance? 2. Internet Governance, International Law and Multistakeholderism 3. Cyber-security and the Internet. 4. New Approaches to Internet Governance and Social and Economic Development (GigaNet) Global Internet Governance Academic Network http://giganet.igloogroups.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 avri at psg.com Thu Sep 17 22:57:24 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:57:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> Hi, and if the civil society orgs had the lobbying clout, wouldn't we use it? wouldn't it be malfeasance to one's members not to do anything legal one could? and perhaps we do have the clout among some our participants, but we do not seem to organize lobbying efforts with the same zeal. perhaps we should - not that i know anything about what it takes to lobby US congress or anyone's legislature for that mater.. a. On 18 Sep 2009, at 00:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: > So the trademark interests continue to go to the US Congress while > bargaining in bad faith within ICANN. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:55 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom >> >> http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICANN-smith-coble.pdf >> >> ICANN's CEO has been asked to respond by 22 September to three sets >> of >> questions posed by the U.S. House Judiciary's subcommittee on >> Courts and >> Competition Policy. The following day (23 Sept.) the Committee is >> holding >> a hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on >> Competition; the Hearing will be webcast -- see >> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html >> >> Witness Lists have not yet been posted. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Sep 18 03:41:15 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:41:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC and Civil Society at the IGF 2009 in Sharm El In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77E78CA5-EFB0-4164-9D4B-5CC96F28E785@ras.eu.org> Milton, the GigaNet symposium is scheduled on Saturday 14 November, whole day. Meryem Le 18 sept. 09 à 01:13, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > > > 8:30 a.m. on Sunday morning before the opening session to see who > is where, plan and prepare. > > And after that, go to the GigaNet symposium, and hear the keynote > speech > > Ronald J. Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, “Beyond Denial: Introducing > the Next Generation of Internet Controls” > > Deibert is Professor and Director of The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre > for International Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. > Rohozinski is CEO at Psiphon Inc., Principal and CEO at The SecDev > Group, Ottawa, Canada. > Symposium Themes > > 1. What counts as Internet Governance? > 2. Internet Governance, International Law and Multistakeholderism > 3. Cyber-security and the Internet. > 4. New Approaches to Internet Governance and Social and Economic > Development > > (GigaNet) > > Global Internet Governance Academic Network > http://giganet.igloogroups.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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 18 04:08:52 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:38:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> Message-ID: <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > and if the civil society orgs had the lobbying clout, wouldn't we use it? > wouldn't it be malfeasance to one's members not to do anything legal > one could? > > and perhaps we do have the clout among some our participants, > but we do not seem to organize lobbying efforts with the same zeal. Maybe. But on another important count, we, as the South based civil society groups, loathe to work through a system where the interests and rights of one country are highly privileged over others (the sub-committee keeps speaking of US citizens, and expectedly so). We are not willing to be the 'rest of them' as we figure in this system... It is therefore of great and urgent importance that internationalization of supervision of ICANN is seen as *the* non-negotiable and urgent step in the IG arena. The reluctance and double-speak of many in what is seen as the global civil society in this arena is most disturbing to me, and as I am prone to say, completely unacceptable. parminder > > perhaps we should > - not that i know anything about what it takes to lobby US congress > or anyone's legislature for that mater.. > > a. > > On 18 Sep 2009, at 00:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> So the trademark interests continue to go to the US Congress while >> bargaining in bad faith within ICANN. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:55 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom >>> >>> http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICANN-smith-coble.pdf >>> >>> ICANN's CEO has been asked to respond by 22 September to three sets of >>> questions posed by the U.S. House Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts >>> and >>> Competition Policy. The following day (23 Sept.) the Committee is >>> holding >>> a hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on >>> Competition; the Hearing will be webcast -- see >>> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html >>> >>> Witness Lists have not yet been posted. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 04:12:01 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:12:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC and Civil Society at the IGF 2009 in Sharm El In-Reply-To: <77E78CA5-EFB0-4164-9D4B-5CC96F28E785@ras.eu.org> References: <4AB2131F.1000506@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<77E78CA5-EFB0-4164-9D4B-5CC96F28E785@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E73@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Aha, Meryem, that "mistake" was just a clever way for me to prolong discussion of the GigaNet Symposium on this list....I would never, never forget the correct date. --MM ________________________________________ From: Meryem Marzouki [marzouki at ras.eu.org] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 3:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC and Civil Society at the IGF 2009 in Sharm El Milton, the GigaNet symposium is scheduled on Saturday 14 November, whole day. Meryem Le 18 sept. 09 à 01:13, Milton L Mueller a écrit : ________________________________ 8:30 a.m. on Sunday morning before the opening session to see who is where, plan and prepare. And after that, go to the GigaNet symposium, and hear the keynote speech Ronald J. Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, “Beyond Denial: Introducing the Next Generation of Internet Controls” Deibert is Professor and Director of The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. Rohozinski is CEO at Psiphon Inc., Principal and CEO at The SecDev Group, Ottawa, Canada. Symposium Themes 1. What counts as Internet Governance? 2. Internet Governance, International Law and Multistakeholderism 3. Cyber-security and the Internet. 4. New Approaches to Internet Governance and Social and Economic Development (GigaNet) Global Internet Governance Academic Network http://giganet.igloogroups.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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 18 04:14:19 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:14:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Agreed, Parminder. And this system of supervision is an affront to all liberal and democratic norms of governance, not just to the South. It is, however, de-nationalization we need, not "inter"nationalization ________________________________________ Maybe. But on another important count, we, as the South based civil society groups, loathe to work through a system where the interests and rights of one country are highly privileged over others (the sub-committee keeps speaking of US citizens, and expectedly so). We are not willing to be the 'rest of them' as we figure in this system... It is therefore of great and urgent importance that internationalization of supervision of ICANN is seen as *the* non-negotiable and urgent step in the IG arena. The reluctance and double-speak of many in what is seen as the global civil society in this arena is most disturbing to me, and as I am prone to say, completely unacceptable. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Sep 18 04:37:02 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:37:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <16701077.6700.1253263021978.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f13> Dear Parminder Once more you got the point. Continue to be the voice of the South : it's so much missed in these too often "academic" and "asymmetrical" discussions. I regret being forced to stay far from Geneva for a couple of weeks more, but I try to follow the discussion on the list(s). I do hope that I'll recover by the beginning of next month in order to participate in the ITU meeting on financing mechanisms (the other "hot potato" of the WSIS ...) where DCs are to be considered as THE prioritary goal of our concerns. Hope to see you as soon as possible ! With my friendly support for your commitment Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 18/09/09 10:09 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > > > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > and if the civil society orgs had the lobbying clout, wouldn't we use it? > > wouldn't it be malfeasance to one's members not to do anything legal > > one could? > > > > and perhaps we do have the clout among some our participants, > > but we do not seem to organize lobbying efforts with the same zeal. > Maybe. But on another important count, we, as the South based civil > society groups, loathe to work through a system where the interests and > rights of one country are highly privileged over others (the > sub-committee keeps speaking of US citizens, and expectedly so). We are > not willing to be the 'rest of them' as we figure in this system... It > is therefore of great and urgent importance that internationalization of > supervision of ICANN is seen as *the* non-negotiable and urgent step in > the IG arena. The reluctance and double-speak of many in what is seen as > the global civil society in this arena is most disturbing to me, and as > I am prone to say, completely unacceptable. > > parminder > > > > perhaps we should > > - not that i know anything about what it takes to lobby US congress > > or anyone's legislature for that mater.. > > > > a. > > > > On 18 Sep 2009, at 00:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> So the trademark interests continue to go to the US Congress while > >> bargaining in bad faith within ICANN. > >> > >> --MM > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:55 PM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > >>> > >>> http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICANN-smith-coble.pdf > >>> > >>> ICANN's CEO has been asked to respond by 22 September to three sets of > >>> questions posed by the U.S. House Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts > >>> and > >>> Competition Policy. The following day (23 Sept.) the Committee is > >>> holding > >>> a hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on > >>> Competition; the Hearing will be webcast -- see > >>> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html > >>> > >>> Witness Lists have not yet been posted. > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Sep 18 04:51:43 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:51:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> To Parminder: count also non South based civil society groups in. To Milton: liberal (in the political, not the economical, sense) and democratic norms of governance don't necessarily imply "de- nationalization" (and vice-versa!). This is only one ideological viewpoint. Le 18 sept. 09 à 10:14, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > Agreed, Parminder. And this system of supervision is an affront to > all liberal and democratic norms of governance, not just to the > South. It is, however, de-nationalization we need, not > "inter"nationalization > ________________________________________ > > Maybe. But on another important count, we, as the South based civil > society groups, loathe to work through a system where the interests > and > rights of one country are highly privileged over others (the > sub-committee keeps speaking of US citizens, and expectedly so). We > are > not willing to be the 'rest of them' as we figure in this system... It > is therefore of great and urgent importance that > internationalization of > supervision of ICANN is seen as *the* non-negotiable and urgent > step in > the IG arena. The reluctance and double-speak of many in what is > seen as > the global civil society in this arena is most disturbing to me, > and as > I am prone to say, completely unacceptable. > > parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Fri Sep 18 04:58:48 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:58:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF sessions Message-ID: We have been advised within the last hour that IGF requires our nominations for speakers for orientation, opening and closing ceremonies at IGF ­ and needs them within 72 hours. If you are interested in representing civil societys interests as a speaker at any of these sessions, and will be attending, please confidentially advise Ginger and myself offlist within 48 hours of now. We will make some appropriate decisions and present a slate of suitable candidates to IGF Secretariat for consideration. They wil of course be looking for North/South and gender balance and these factors will be taken into account in the list we forward to them. Ian Peter > -------------- 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 Fri Sep 18 05:00:02 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:30:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AB34C12.3090000@itforchange.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > Agreed, Parminder. And this system of supervision is an affront to all liberal and democratic norms of governance, not just to the South. It is, however, de-nationalization we need, not "inter"nationalization > Milton You know I do agree that Internet, and the consequent information society paradigm, creates the condition of a new global public, which is not simply a sum of national ones. This both requires and creates the conditions/ possibilities for a new global polity. And Internet Governance needs to be located in this new public. This far we agree. But since real world requires real world solutions, we need to understand and perhaps agree to the kind of path we should and will take to this new 'global public' based 'global polity' ... One path, which is increasingly dominant and with which I have violent disagreement, is based on basically giving in to the leadership of global corporates, which is what is happening with most of the private governance systems, including ICANN. We all know they are subtle about it and careful in the steps taken, but basically thats the direction on how our global common decisions will be taken if we keep going with the present dominant trend. I will not argue any further the theoretical basis of such a fear, but i can if needed. For us, this very well-founded fear underlies one of the principal global struggles at present. The other possibility is to move towards this new 'global polity' taking on from existing relatively democratic institutions - however faulty in practice, but much more sound in theory and principles than private regimes. One can improve bad practice when the theory is good, but with bad theory and principles you are headed only one way. It is not an easy challenge, but it is relatively easier to agree to the basic principles that should guide us. And perhaps the most basic principles is to understand and accept the difference between private and public interests - very clearly, and assert it repeatedly. Such a distinction is basic to the democratic fibre of a society. The amount of confusion on this issue in most emergent governance systems is so huge that one cannot even start speaking about them. A second principle of a viable global polity, and here our differences come to the fore, is that you cannot try to build it on free-market economic logic alone. Dimensions of social justice and equity, and the corresponding redistributional efforts, have to go hand-in-hand with economic globalisation. Some such basic principles of social equity along with institutions of property and free market are basic to any polity (do you know of an exception?) and it will need also to be of a 'global polity'. it is in this landscape or background that a just and fair IG system will be built. We are far from there, no doubt, but it is easier to see if we are headed to the right direction, or the opposite one. Such an assessment can guide our immediate steps. Having said all this, I happy with the term de-nationalisation to the extent it truely connotes a new global public and global polity, and is not a means for corporates to highjack control of our global society, or for already dominant countries to rule with a new and enhanced legitimacy. Parminder > ________________________________________ > > Maybe. But on another important count, we, as the South based civil > society groups, loathe to work through a system where the interests and > rights of one country are highly privileged over others (the > sub-committee keeps speaking of US citizens, and expectedly so). We are > not willing to be the 'rest of them' as we figure in this system... It > is therefore of great and urgent importance that internationalization of > supervision of ICANN is seen as *the* non-negotiable and urgent step in > the IG arena. The reluctance and double-speak of many in what is seen as > the global civil society in this arena is most disturbing to me, and as > I am prone to say, completely unacceptable. > > parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 06:32:31 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:32:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: 2009 EuroDIG stakeholders support the protection of human rightsand universal access as key priorities for Internet governance In-Reply-To: <83146c4947990520981a3e69f4494a90@lists.hrea.org> References: <83146c4947990520981a3e69f4494a90@lists.hrea.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70909180332o67f1994djdfa83e14f2ae5ba7@mail.gmail.com> I just recieved the following press communique statement from the Council of Europe Directorate of Communication from after the Eurodig about issues related to Human Rights. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM Subject: [hrea] 2009 EuroDIG stakeholders support the protection of human rights and universal access as key priorities for Internet governance To: fouadbajwa Geneva, 16.09.2009 – The protection of human rights, ensuring universal access to the Internet as a public service and promoting media literacy should be key priorities for Internet governance in Europe. These were some of the conclusions of the 2nd European Dialogue on Internet Governance, which brought together 200 representatives from business, governments, parliaments and civil society in Geneva on 14-15 September. EuroDIG supported that the Council of Europe, subject to approval by its governing body, provides the secretariat to ensure the sustainability of EuroDIG, which should continue to be organised in cooperation with other organisations and stakeholders, including the European Parliament (EP). The EP was among the promoters of the idea of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) at European level and supported the 1st EuroDIG in Strasbourg. There was consensus among participants on the importance of maintaining a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance related issues following the UN Internet Governance Forum model and the Tunis Agenda (the conclusions of the World Summit on the Information Society), and that EuroDIG is the “European IGF”, where a common European perspective should be discussed and carried to other fora. Issues discussed included access to the Internet, online privacy and social networks, cybercrime, critical Internet resources, net neutrality, the quality and reliability of content and related issues concerning public service media and user-generated content, and copyright issues. Media literacy also featured highly in the discussions. The event was co-organised by the European Broadcasting Union and the Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM), with the support of the Council of Europe. The multi-stakeholder debates will serve to prepare European contributions to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which will take place from 15 to 18 November 2009 in Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt. Summaries of the discussions of the workshops can be found at www.eurodig.org Additional information: The EuroDIG Organisation Network, created in 2008, is an open and growing group of European stakeholders such as the Council of Europe, “The Club of Rome – European Support Centre”, Comunica-ch, DiploFoundation - the European At-Large Organisation (EURALO), the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Euro-NF, the European Parliament, the German Association of Internet Economy, the Finnish, French, Icelandic and Swiss governments, INHOPE, the International Chamber of Commerce, INSAFE, ISOC-ECC , Medienstadt Leipzig e.V., NOMINET, Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM), SWITCH, United Service Union (ver.di) and the European Youth Forum. Council of Europe Directorate of Communication Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 60 Fax:+33 (0)3 88 41 39 11 -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 18 06:35:06 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:05:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4AB3625A.3080201@itforchange.net> Subsequent to an offline exchange, I must make it clear that the term doublespeak is used not for Avri, since the point where it appears is far removed from what could in any way be construed as a direct response to her email.. It has to do with the attitude of many in the civil society who treat internationalization as not that important an issue, and we all know it is a fact that many don't, and often actively resist any moves in this direction. parminder Parminder wrote: > > > Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> and if the civil society orgs had the lobbying clout, wouldn't we use >> it? >> wouldn't it be malfeasance to one's members not to do anything legal >> one could? >> >> and perhaps we do have the clout among some our participants, >> but we do not seem to organize lobbying efforts with the same zeal. > Maybe. But on another important count, we, as the South based civil > society groups, loathe to work through a system where the interests > and rights of one country are highly privileged over others (the > sub-committee keeps speaking of US citizens, and expectedly so). We > are not willing to be the 'rest of them' as we figure in this > system... It is therefore of great and urgent importance that > internationalization of supervision of ICANN is seen as *the* > non-negotiable and urgent step in the IG arena. The reluctance and > double-speak of many in what is seen as the global civil society in > this arena is most disturbing to me, and as I am prone to say, > completely unacceptable. > > parminder >> >> perhaps we should >> - not that i know anything about what it takes to lobby US congress >> or anyone's legislature for that mater.. >> >> a. >> >> On 18 Sep 2009, at 00:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> So the trademark interests continue to go to the US Congress while >>> bargaining in bad faith within ICANN. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:55 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom >>>> >>>> http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICANN-smith-coble.pdf >>>> >>>> ICANN's CEO has been asked to respond by 22 September to three sets of >>>> questions posed by the U.S. House Judiciary's subcommittee on >>>> Courts and >>>> Competition Policy. The following day (23 Sept.) the Committee is >>>> holding >>>> a hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on >>>> Competition; the Hearing will be webcast -- see >>>> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html >>>> >>>> Witness Lists have not yet been posted. >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 18 14:46:07 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Anti-Nationalism, Public Service & Voting Rights Message-ID: <19524.70752.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Very cool emails on the cause of the "South", Rod's upcoming testimony and Human Rights. I think many should be proud and answer the recent q'aire in very much an affirmative when it comes to impact.  Personally my impact is never measured as I don't ask for anything except the freedom to speak. But I do demand my right to vote. And I do demand my right to enjoy public services just like anyone else.   A big thank you to all of you out there pushing the causes of a free society. And thank you for taking that vital time and effort to bend an ear or pound on a dinner table.   I do not agree with many of you, but I do agree to this: Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. -------------- 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 Sep 18 15:18:16 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <81564.87727.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Careful gentlemen,   Lest you go so far in principle to tear down one Nations power that you obliterate all Nations power.  Sovereignty is a principle to uphold not destroy.  But if your cause is to denationalize an industry you should look at the downside first. But then again it sounds more like you are in favor of Nationalizing (you are just arguing over who gets control of the new "Nation")     ""It is, however, de-nationalization we need, not "inter"nationalization""   -------------- 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 Sep 18 15:20:32 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:20:32 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Message-ID: <19043344.1253301632672.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 18 15:22:48 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:22:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > To Milton: liberal (in the political, not the economical, sense) Sorry, you take one you gotta take the other. > liberal and > democratic norms of governance don't necessarily imply "de- > nationalization" (and vice-versa!). In the context of global governance of the Internet, I am afraid they do. But of course you are right, " This is only one ideological > viewpoint. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 15:24:28 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:24:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Message-ID: <22454421.1253301868937.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.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 Sep 18 15:42:02 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:42:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Message-ID: <18077094.1253302922911.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Parminder and all, Well said and I and most INEGroup members agree with same in principal. One proviso is that niether should NGO's or non-profit orgs become the defacto governers of the Internet either, but should be as individuals, members of equal standing in participation and determination of Internet Governance. -----Original Message----- >From: Parminder >Sent: Sep 18, 2009 4:00 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Milton L Mueller >Cc: Avri Doria >Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > > > >Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Agreed, Parminder. And this system of supervision is an affront to all liberal and democratic norms of governance, not just to the South. It is, however, de-nationalization we need, not "inter"nationalization >> >Milton > >You know I do agree that Internet, and the consequent information >society paradigm, creates the condition of a new global public, which is >not simply a sum of national ones. This both requires and creates the >conditions/ possibilities for a new global polity. And Internet >Governance needs to be located in this new public. This far we agree. > >But since real world requires real world solutions, we need to >understand and perhaps agree to the kind of path we should and will take >to this new 'global public' based 'global polity' ... > >One path, which is increasingly dominant and with which I have violent >disagreement, is based on basically giving in to the leadership of >global corporates, which is what is happening with most of the private >governance systems, including ICANN. We all know they are subtle about >it and careful in the steps taken, but basically thats the direction on >how our global common decisions will be taken if we keep going with the >present dominant trend. I will not argue any further the theoretical >basis of such a fear, but i can if needed. For us, this very >well-founded fear underlies one of the principal global struggles at >present. > >The other possibility is to move towards this new 'global polity' taking >on from existing relatively democratic institutions - however faulty in >practice, but much more sound in theory and principles than private >regimes. One can improve bad practice when the theory is good, but with >bad theory and principles you are headed only one way. > >It is not an easy challenge, but it is relatively easier to agree to the >basic principles that should guide us. And perhaps the most basic >principles is to understand and accept the difference between private >and public interests - very clearly, and assert it repeatedly. Such a >distinction is basic to the democratic fibre of a society. The amount of >confusion on this issue in most emergent governance systems is so huge >that one cannot even start speaking about them. > >A second principle of a viable global polity, and here our differences >come to the fore, is that you cannot try to build it on free-market >economic logic alone. Dimensions of social justice and equity, and the >corresponding redistributional efforts, have to go hand-in-hand with >economic globalisation. Some such basic principles of social equity >along with institutions of property and free market are basic to any >polity (do you know of an exception?) and it will need also to be of a >'global polity'. it is in this landscape or background that a just and >fair IG system will be built. We are far from there, no doubt, but it is >easier to see if we are headed to the right direction, or the opposite >one. Such an assessment can guide our immediate steps. > >Having said all this, I happy with the term de-nationalisation to the >extent it truely connotes a new global public and global polity, and is >not a means for corporates to highjack control of our global society, or >for already dominant countries to rule with a new and enhanced legitimacy. > >Parminder >> ________________________________________ >> >> Maybe. But on another important count, we, as the South based civil >> society groups, loathe to work through a system where the interests and >> rights of one country are highly privileged over others (the >> sub-committee keeps speaking of US citizens, and expectedly so). We are >> not willing to be the 'rest of them' as we figure in this system... It >> is therefore of great and urgent importance that internationalization of >> supervision of ICANN is seen as *the* non-negotiable and urgent step in >> the IG arena. The reluctance and double-speak of many in what is seen as >> the global civil society in this arena is most disturbing to me, and as >> I am prone to say, completely unacceptable. >> >> parminder >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 18 15:47:38 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:47:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4AB34C12.3090000@itforchange.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB34C12.3090000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > You know I do agree that Internet, and the consequent information > society paradigm, creates the condition of a new global public, which is > not simply a sum of national ones. This both requires and creates the > conditions/ possibilities for a new global polity. And Internet > Governance needs to be located in this new public. This far we agree. Yes. And you say it so well. > But since real world requires real world solutions, we need to > understand and perhaps agree to the kind of path we should and will take > to this new 'global public' based 'global polity' ... Indeed. And I agree that the cover-word "denationalization" does not describe a path, so, bang, ungh, ya got me, sheriff > One path, which is increasingly dominant and with which I have violent > disagreement, is based on basically giving in to the leadership of > global corporates, which is what is happening with most of the private > governance systems, including ICANN. True as far as it goes. But since ICANN is a global institution that comes much closer to constituting and responding to a global polity, and since nation-states actively prevent it from doing so, and often prop up and reinforce certain multi-national (not global) private sector interests, then it matters what happens in that venue. And this has a lot more consequence for communication-information policy than the sectoral policy regarding domain names. So all this leads up to the Big Question: why aren't YOU helping us in the one arena where this conflict is real and being played out now??? NCUC membership application form here: http://noncommercial-sg.org > The other possibility is to move towards this new 'global polity' taking > on from existing relatively democratic institutions - however faulty in > practice, but much more sound in theory and principles than private > regimes. That's really where we disagree. National democracy is based too much on mutually exclusive collective identities and narrow protectionist economic interests to ever get to a global polity. But I am willing to concede that there could be a role for states in maintaining a balance of power that contributes mightily to carving out a space that transcends them. > It is not an easy challenge, but it is relatively easier to agree to the > basic principles that should guide us. And perhaps the most basic > principles is to understand and accept the difference between private > and public interests - very clearly, and assert it repeatedly. Such a Yes, but too many people in your camp don't understand that it is in the public interest to have a vibrant, autonomous, private sector and rights of private individuals not subject to simple public majoritarianism... How do we get there from nation-states asserting their institutional self-interest and security in a sovereignty-based international system? If 1.2 billion Chinese voters vote that India has really always been part of China, and there are only 1.1 billion votes in opposition what happens? > A second principle of a viable global polity, and here our differences > come to the fore, is that you cannot try to build it on free-market > economic logic alone. Free markets rely on a public good, namely equal rights under the law, lawful, constitutional governance, etc. joint recognition of rights, etc. So, yeah, do we disagree? Well, damn. Another day has gone by and Parminder and I together have not quite solved the world's problems. Let me sleep on it tonight. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 16:01:18 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:01:18 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and Message-ID: <3702165.1253304078982.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Vanda and all, ICANN should not be directly accountable to andy "Group" but to individual Stakeholders/users. Groups are secondary as the accountability chain. -----Original Message----- >From: Vanda Scartezini >Sent: Sep 16, 2009 7:33 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"' , 'Avri Doria' , NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Subject: RE: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? > >I can understand both position. IGF has other focus, but ICANN shall >consider the IGF participants as relevant interested groups to whom ICANN >should be accountable. > >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, September 16, 2009 9:13 AM >To: Avri Doria; NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] AW: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and >International Conformity - IAIC at IGF? > >My understanding of an "enhanced accountability mechanism" is that it has >several components. > >There is no one single master-slave-relationship. It is an interactive >mechanism where various components offers various channels to turn input >into impact. > >wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Von: Non-Commercial User Constituency im Auftrag von Avri Doria >Gesendet: Mi 16.09.2009 13:14 >An: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Betreff: Re: Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International >Conformity - IAIC at IGF? > > > >On 16 Sep 2009, at 12:24, McTim wrote: > >> If you want to have an >> impact on ICANN, you can't do it via the IGF. > > >well that is a bit strong. > >certainly one can have the most direct effect by participating in >ICANN and its vehicles. > >but that does not mean that what goes on in the IGF is not seen by >ICANN or that ICANN ignores it. >it most certainly can have an effect, albeit it indirect. > > >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 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Sep 18 17:22:59 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:22:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> Le 18 sept. 09 à 21:22, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] >> To Milton: liberal (in the political, not the economical, sense) > > Sorry, you take one you gotta take the other. Unbundle, Milton, unbundle.. You're talking like a (de facto) software monopoly:) You may have political liberalism coexist with social justice, but it's harder to achieve with full economical liberalism. And social justice is the point you're missing here. When you say (in another message in reply to Parminder): >> Free markets rely on a public good, namely equal rights under the >> law, lawful, constitutional governance, etc. joint recognition of >> rights, etc. This leaves no room for social justice. Social justice implies some discrimination and cannot be realized with entirely free markets. "Equal rights under the law" are not enough to realize equal opportunities. In other words, when theoretically equal rights are not equally enjoyed in practice, then the system necessarily favors private interests over public interest. I understand that by "de-nationalization" you don't mean it right now, fully and unconditionally -- at least I hope so:) In the same way, "inter"nationalization doesn't mean nation-states only, without any counter power, and forever. What is needed is to articulate (unbundled:) globalization in a system based on "inter"nationalization. By articulating I mean without loosing at any step neither the obligation to respect and enforce human rights, nor the capacity to discriminate for social justice. And who is bound by this obligation and who has the capacity to discriminate, if not nation-states? Currently and for many years to come. I'm not saying they all do, not even that they fully do. But I fail to see any other entity showing this capacity. The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a "global institution". The fact that it does make global decisions impacting the whole world doesn't make it a global institution. Since it is not a global institution (nor, or course, an inter-national one), many of us are reluctant to enter this game deprived of sound rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness of your intentions and efforts. Meryem____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 09:52:52 2009 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:52:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] ISPs Not to interfere with frre flow of informations? Message-ID: I read the following and found it interesting for the network. "The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, according to reports published Saturday". The link to the article is: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090919/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules Best regards Aaron -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 19 11:50:22 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] New Complex Systems development -- gTLDs Message-ID: <466908.72410.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Put plain and simple, when governing bodies allow large developers to develop they require certain services and infrastructure be provided  for the public good. I have only limited experience in this area, California, Arizona, Mexico, Vietnam and France. But I have seen in all developments, residential, commercial and industrial that the developer be required to provide for such things as fire, school, common areas, open space and even utilities and roads.   Why can't we, when giving developers the right to build a new gTLD, do the same. Make the developer provide for Education, Safety and Voting. -------------- 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 Sep 19 12:15:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <45838.5754.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Why when we look at Internet Governance do we fall prey to the same old wolves that would keep us in the same old box.   "de" this and "anti" that. Believe it or not we are not required to speak in the same old nationalistic paradigms.  We are not bound by these old idioms and wonderfully nastalgic philosphic diagrams.   Why not speak in terms of "co-peratives"  "combines" "synergism"?  Why not offer up the notion that what the "We the people" want and need can be "capitalized" on -- and that is OK. Why not offer up the principles that goodwill can be good living. Why not promote the Ideas that Communal and Demo are not mutually exclusive and that economics can do quite well reflecting the peoples needs rather than dictating them.   We have got to begin by our view and vision. We got to got to got to stop seeing a problem and begin to get used to and expecting to see solutions. We got to start looking past and through our differences and start seeing our commonalities.   Our Global Internet Social and Technical Environment deserves stewards who are willing to drop the old clubs and begin new ones based upon our new capacities to create and destroy. WE need the energy of the young and the capabilities of the old. We need human social infrastructure that is adaptable and inclusive.   "When what you have done, 40 times, no longer works -- get all crazy and try something new, you may find that the pain of change is overwhelmed by the sweetness of success" ed -2001 on the 911 tragedy --- On Fri, 9/18/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Meryem Marzouki" Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 7:22 PM > -----Original Message----- > From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] > To Milton: liberal (in the political, not the economical, sense) Sorry, you take one you gotta take the other. > liberal and > democratic norms of governance don't necessarily imply "de- > nationalization" (and vice-versa!). In the context of global governance of the Internet, I am afraid they do. But of course you are right, " This is only one ideological > viewpoint. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 19 15:56:04 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:56:04 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Message-ID: <6401452.1253390164204.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.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 Sep 19 16:00:57 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:00:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] ISPs Not to interfere with frre flow of Message-ID: <6580586.1253390457713.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.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 Sep 19 16:11:49 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:11:49 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] New "JUSTICE" Act Could Roll Back Telecom Immunity Message-ID: <3968913.1253391110020.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, INEGroup has been pushing hard for this in Washington for some time now, and it seens that some traction is being realized. See: http://yro.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=09/09/18/1913248 A bill proposed in Congress that could http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/justice-act-would-roll-back-telecom-wiretap-immunity.arsroll back telecom retroactive immunity along with adding other privacy safeguards. The "Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counter-Terrorism Efforts" (JUSTICE) Act advocates the "least intrusive means" of information collection and imposes many limitations on the process. "One of the most significant aspects of the JUSTICE Act is that it will remove the retroactive immunity grants that were given to the telecom companies that participated in the NSA warrantless surveillance program. The companies that cooperated with the surveillance program likely violated several laws, including section 222 of the Communications Act, which prohibits disclosure of network customer information. The immunity grants have prevented the telecommunications companies that voluntarily participated in this program from being held accountable in court." 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 Sat Sep 19 16:25:16 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:25:16 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] RIAA's Elementary School Copyright Curriculum Message-ID: <449532.1253391916406.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, Sadly it seems that the RIAA and I would suppose the MPAA are not yet on board with the FCC nor completely honest about their laudable efforts in education. This is of course not surprising but is rather shameful. So I wonder if Mr Beckstrom will be more ernest about getting the IPC and the BC constituencies more in line with the Internet community and if DOC/NTIA will be more forthcoming in instructing the RIAA in particular as to their proper duties in education of youngsters? I am sure we all want our youngsters properly educated, not politically exploited... See: http://yro.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=09/09/18/1338249 "In a blatant campaign devoid of any subtlety, the http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/back-to-school-with-riaa-funded-curriculum.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss RIAA is fighting for the hearts and minds of our children with its [1]Music Rules, a collection of education materials on how to respect copyright. The curriculum includes vocabulary such as 'counterfeit recordings, DMCA notice, "Grokster" ruling, legal downloading, online piracy, peer-to-peer file sharing, pirate recordings, songlifting, and US copyright law.' There is no mention whatsoever of fair use. Compounding the bias, it includes insights such as that taking music without paying for it is 'songlifting,' and that making copies for personal use and then playing them while your friends come over is illegal. On the bright side, it includes math showing that the total damages from copyright infringement by children in the US amount to a measly $7.8 million." 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 19 18:49:43 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:49:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > Unbundle, Milton, unbundle.. You're talking like a (de facto) > software monopoly:) Oh no, you are almost 180 degrees pointed away from the truth. "Social justice" requires monopoly and bundling, as do all forms of hierarchically redistributed wealth. E.g., the old telephone monopolies were considered to be "just" forms of bundling service with all kinds of public obligations, and it was only that terrible economic liberalism that broke them up and unbundled them and gave us the Internet. I wonder what choice Meryem Marzouki would have made, in 1975, had she been confronted with the choice of an unbundled, competitive, economically liberal information services industry organized around a decentralized, globalized Internet and the good old public service monopoly circa 1975. I suspect she would have invoked social justice and told us to never let the Internet happen. Social justice sounds nice. And I am not adamantly opposed to social policies that ameliorate inequalities and foster equal opportunity. Economic liberalism can co-exist with those, as long as they don't get out of hand. But I always have a hard time understanding why social democrats believe that humans as economic actors are destructive, horrible and incapable and the very same humans as political actors become selfless, constructive, justice-pursuing demigods. That is why I say you can't have one without the other. If people are too stupid or pathetic to have economic freedom then they can't have political freedom either. > The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a > "global institution". Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into being. > rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness > of your intentions and efforts. Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Sep 20 09:16:06 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:16:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <9845311FEB14455E87FC17E2348D22B9@userPC> Milton, "Social justice" requires no such thing except in the somewhat fevered fantasies of neo-Cold Warriors and their ilk. Social justice is a set of norms--equality, equality before the law, meleorative intervention to resolve social distress, universal access to the variety of social and public goods and so on... In principle at least these can be provided by any form of governance (or non-governance under some schemas). Admittedly, certain types of governance arrangements involving the use of the instrumentality of the State would appear to be a particularly useful modality of implementation but the same could be said for the relationship between a libertarian's free market and the ethical (and governance structures) of the jungle. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: RE: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > Unbundle, Milton, unbundle.. You're talking like a (de facto) software > monopoly:) Oh no, you are almost 180 degrees pointed away from the truth. "Social justice" requires monopoly and bundling, as do all forms of hierarchically redistributed wealth. E.g., the old telephone monopolies were considered to be "just" forms of bundling service with all kinds of public obligations, and it was only that terrible economic liberalism that broke them up and unbundled them and gave us the Internet. I wonder what choice Meryem Marzouki would have made, in 1975, had she been confronted with the choice of an unbundled, competitive, economically liberal information services industry organized around a decentralized, globalized Internet and the good old public service monopoly circa 1975. I suspect she would have invoked social justice and told us to never let the Internet happen. Social justice sounds nice. And I am not adamantly opposed to social policies that ameliorate inequalities and foster equal opportunity. Economic liberalism can co-exist with those, as long as they don't get out of hand. But I always have a hard time understanding why social democrats believe that humans as economic actors are destructive, horrible and incapable and the very same humans as political actors become selfless, constructive, justice-pursuing demigods. That is why I say you can't have one without the other. If people are too stupid or pathetic to have economic freedom then they can't have political freedom either. > The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a > "global institution". Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into being. > rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness > of your intentions and efforts. Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 20 09:53:26 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:53:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Anti-Nationalism, Public Service & Voting Rights In-Reply-To: <19524.70752.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <19524.70752.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4ab633d639a8a_5cf3e145eac264@weasel21.tmail> 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 meryem at marzouki.info Sun Sep 20 11:07:06 2009 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:07:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Le 20 sept. 09 à 00:49, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >> Unbundle, Milton, unbundle.. You're talking like a (de facto) >> software monopoly:) > > Oh no, you are almost 180 degrees pointed away from the truth. > "Social justice" requires monopoly and bundling, as do all forms of > hierarchically redistributed wealth. That's totally wrong. There is a confusion here among many different things, like private interests and private sector, as well as public interest and public monopolies, etc. > E.g., the old telephone monopolies were considered to be "just" > forms of bundling service with all kinds of public obligations, and > it was only that terrible economic liberalism that broke them up > and unbundled them and gave us the Internet. Again, wrong. The telecom monopolies have been dismantled, yet in many countries public interest obligations have been maintained or introduced. Including obligations of private companies towards other private companies for the purpose of ensuring true competition (e.g. last loop unbundling). Another example is that, in France and other countries as well, actually at the EU level (where we do have electricity but not, to my knowledge, the soviets:)), there are also general service obligations (e.g. universal service), in the telecom and other sectors as well. The list is long, in various sectors. Some might think that such obligations are still too burdensome for big private companies, others (and I include myself here) might think it's far from reaching true social justice. Again, this is a matter of ideological viewpoints, and there's nothing wrong with this. But don't tell us that policies favoring social justice imply the soviets. True, they imply that a market economy shouldn't be a jungle of uncontrolled economic liberalism. > I wonder what choice Meryem Marzouki would have made, in 1975, Too young at that time, sorry:)) > had she been confronted with the choice of an unbundled, > competitive, economically liberal information services industry > organized around a decentralized, globalized Internet and the good > old public service monopoly circa 1975. I suspect she would have > invoked social justice and told us to never let the Internet happen. Frankly, this is stupid. See above on general service obligations. > Social justice sounds nice. And I am not adamantly opposed to > social policies that ameliorate inequalities and foster equal > opportunity. Ahhhhhh. What a relief:) > Economic liberalism can co-exist with those, as long as they don't > get out of hand. What do you mean? Of whose hand? Are you sure it's not economic liberalism that shouldn't get out of hand?! > But I always have a hard time understanding why social democrats > believe that humans as economic actors are destructive, horrible > and incapable and the very same humans as political actors become > selfless, constructive, justice-pursuing demigods. Come on, Milton. You can do better than be so comically caricatural. Otherwise, I'll start suspecting that, with this view of social democrats, you must be thinking that Obama is a dangerous communist willing to kill all people in the US with his social security plans. This reminds me a program I watched on Fox News around end July on this plan. According to them, Canadian people were dying simply by entering a Canadian hospital (they haven't mentioned Europe, since the social security systems in most member states are good enough to the extent that they already killed everyone in this part of the world). > That is why I say you can't have one without the other. If people > are too stupid or pathetic to have economic freedom then they can't > have political freedom either. I let you read again and think twice... Not sure you've realized what you wrote here. >> The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a >> "global institution". > > Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is > institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. > And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you > understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into being. Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is an organization, led and driven by private companies and interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think your definition is too inclusive here. >> rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness >> of your intentions and efforts. > > Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the > DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some > modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my > choice. You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the ICANN vs. ITU debate? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 12:34:59 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:34:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> Dear Meryem, Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two complementary questions : - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I understand you well) ? These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the agenda in the post-JPA framework. Best Bertrand > > The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a >>> "global institution". >>> >> >> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is >> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. And ICANN >> more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you understand that no global >> polity will spring perfectly into being. >> > > Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is an > organization, led and driven by private companies and interests (including > multi-nationals), still having to be somewhat accountable to the US gov, but > willing to get rid of this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many > details and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't > fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think your > definition is too inclusive here. > > rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness >>> of your intentions and efforts. >>> >> >> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the DNS and >> IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some modification and >> evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. >> > > You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the ICANN vs. ITU > debate? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 meryem at marzouki.info Sun Sep 20 13:09:04 2009 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:09:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> Bertrand, you intervention in this discussion might also help in case there is a difference in the concept of "institution" in French and in English.. My point is not with the global or not global nature of ICANN. It is rather with qualifying it or not as an "institution". I already acknowledged that it makes global decision, impacting the whole world: not sure it makes it truly global, but sort of. I also acknowledge that, say, a really big multinational firm (whatever its sector of activity: finance, security/military, industry, service..) could be a global entity, in the same sense. But an institution, at least in my understanding, has something to do with social order. For better or for worse (an institution is not necessarily democratic), but its purpose is social (like in society, not necessarily like in social justice). I don't think ICANN has any social purpose. Not that it doesn't deal with issues having highly social implications -- it does, but the point is that it has NOT been designed as such. And, to be honest, I don't think there is any reasonable hope to modify it so that its start looking like an institution. Hope this starts answering your questions, and that this might explain why I think CS (nor governments, BTW) shouldn't *participate* in its processes since, yes, they legitimize it this way, and they make it somewhat look like an institution, when it is not, and wont become, in my opinion. Best, Meryem Le 20 sept. 09 à 18:34, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > Dear Meryem, > > Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the > "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two > complementary questions : > - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? > what kind of modification ? > - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in > ICANN's processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I > understand you well) ? > > These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very > difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I > sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of > ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the > agenda in the post-JPA framework. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a > "global institution". > > Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is > institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. > And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you > understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into being. > > Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is > an organization, led and driven by private companies and interests > (including multi-nationals), still having to be somewhat > accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of this. Well, > this is quickly written and misses many details and subtleties, but > that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't fit any acceptable > definition of a global institution. I think your definition is too > inclusive here. > > > rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness > of your intentions and efforts. > > Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the > DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some > modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my > choice. > > You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the ICANN > vs. ITU debate? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy > for the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry > of Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine > de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 13:48:25 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:48:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <954259bd0909201048l749063efob5508c0f1558a767@mail.gmail.com> Meryem, Thanks for the clarification. Well taken. Your point is therefore more about ICANN not being an "institution", because of its supposed lack of social purpose. May I bring two elements to ponder/discuss in that respect : 1) first, the text of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation contain the following words : 3. This Corporation is a *nonprofit public benefit corporation* and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes. The Corporation is organized, and will be operated, *exclusively for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes* within the meaning of § 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), or the corresponding provision of any future United States tax code. [ .. ] In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, *pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interestin the operational stability of the Internet *by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). 4. The Corporation shall operate *for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole*, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations. Couldn't these words be qualified as defining a social purpose ? 2) In many respects, the domain name system is a global public resource. *Doesn't the management of a global public resource in the global public interest qualify as a social purpose ?* Isn't ICANN an attempt at establishing a multi-stakeholder organization/institution/agency managing a global public resource ? If this is the case, why not engage in trying to define its ideal institutional framework ? Different stakeholder groups - and even people on this list - may have different views on what the ideal institutional framework should be for ICANN. And this is not only fine but necessary. But they need to engage in the discussion in order to make it evolve to become fully accountable. The coming year will be an opportunity to develop such a debate. Why is staying out of the discussion helping ICANN evolve in the right way ? There will be opportunities for all actors in the coming months to weigh in, because the discussion on the organization's future will develop. I hope participants on this list will use them. I say it on a personal basis and in my current functions. Best Bertrand On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Bertrand, you intervention in this discussion might also help in case there > is a difference in the concept of "institution" in French and in English..My > point is not with the global or not global nature of ICANN. It is rather > with qualifying it or not as an "institution". > I already acknowledged that it makes global decision, impacting the whole > world: not sure it makes it truly global, but sort of. I also acknowledge > that, say, a really big multinational firm (whatever its sector of activity: > finance, security/military, industry, service..) could be a global entity, > in the same sense. > But an institution, at least in my understanding, has something to do with > social order. For better or for worse (an institution is not necessarily > democratic), but its purpose is social (like in society, not necessarily > like in social justice). > I don't think ICANN has any social purpose. Not that it doesn't deal with > issues having highly social implications -- it does, but the point is that > it has NOT been designed as such. And, to be honest, I don't think there is > any reasonable hope to modify it so that its start looking like an > institution. > > Hope this starts answering your questions, and that this might explain why > I think CS (nor governments, BTW) shouldn't *participate* in its processes > since, yes, they legitimize it this way, and they make it somewhat look like > an institution, when it is not, and wont become, in my opinion. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 20 sept. 09 à 18:34, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > > Dear Meryem, > > Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the "global" or > non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two complementary questions : > - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? what > kind of modification ? > - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's > processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I understand you > well) ? > > These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very difficult > issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I sincerely am interested in > practical suggestions. The issue of ICANN's accountability to all > stakeholders will be high on the agenda in the post-JPA framework. > > Best > > Bertrand > > >> >> The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a >>>> "global institution". >>>> >>> >>> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is >>> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. And ICANN >>> more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you understand that no global >>> polity will spring perfectly into being. >>> >> >> Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is an >> organization, led and driven by private companies and interests (including >> multi-nationals), still having to be somewhat accountable to the US gov, but >> willing to get rid of this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many >> details and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't >> fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think your >> definition is too inclusive here. >> >> rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness >>>> of your intentions and efforts. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the DNS and >>> IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some modification and >>> evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. >>> >> >> You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the ICANN vs. ITU >> debate? >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 Sep 20 14:12:19 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Anti-Nationalism, Public Service & Voting Rights In-Reply-To: <4ab633d639a8a_5cf3e145eac264@weasel21.tmail> Message-ID: <64453.58608.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Vanda,   I not only agree with you, being young and brash, I can even make the following statement: "Given basic Human Rights we as humans are far more likely and inclined to do good, rather that wrong".    I am not so naive to think there are not bad people or good ones that do bad. I am not blind that one man will mistreat his neighbor in a conflict and competition for more. And I have seen what the poverty of ignorance can cost a whole society. But more often I see:  Unlearned learn from wise, those that have,, give, those that thirst are quenched ---  If and only if the most basic rights of Speech, Assembly, Nondiscrimination and the right to Learn are present. Thus your platform is created.   In leading the thought, debate and action in Internet Governance I hope these good leaders continue to strive to lead by example and let all speak here, assemble here, be treated equally here so that all can learn. Even the wise from us unwashed. --- On Sun, 9/20/09, vanda wrote: From: vanda Subject: Re: [governance] Anti-Nationalism, Public Service & Voting Rights To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 1:53 PM I, with enough age to have seen some years of absence of freedom in the country ( though mild than our neiboughrs here in south america) , believe freadom is the basic asset any human being needs to live.  all other needs of assets will come with the help of this plataform. vanda Em 18/09/2009 15:46, Eric Dierker < cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net > escreveu: Very cool emails on the cause of the "South", Rod's upcoming testimony and Human Rights. I think many should be proud and answer the recent q'aire in very much an affirmative when it comes to impact.  Personally my impact is never measured as I don't ask for anything except the freedom to speak. But I do demand my right to vote. And I do demand my right to enjoy public services just like anyone else.   A big thank you to all of you out there pushing the causes of a free society. And thank you for taking that vital time and effort to bend an ear or pound on a dinner table.   I do not agree with many of you, but I do agree to this: Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. -------------- 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 Sun Sep 20 14:52:22 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:22:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> Following on from Bertrand's email, I have an additional question, triggered by the exchange between Milton and Parminder. If it is denationalisation that we are striving for, rather than internationalisation, then what will democratic representation in this global polity look like, and how will it be achieved? It is fine to say that new models should not allow for a corporate take-over, but how to ensure that, especially in a world where the predominance of corporations goes questioned so little? Although state representation is no guarantee that the interests of marginalised people in the South will be taken into account, no other system of representation has managed to do a better job at the global level so far, and it remains tremendously unclear to me how corporates can be entrusted with the public interest without clear government oversight. If I am to think away states, I would like to have an idea of what the alternatives would look like. That would also help in getting more of a sense of whether the path to a democratic global polity might indeed pass through ICANN, or not. Thanks, Anja On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Meryem, > > Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the > "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two > complementary questions : > - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? > what kind of modification ? > - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's > processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I understand > you well) ? > > These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very > difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I sincerely > am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of ICANN's > accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the agenda in the > post-JPA framework. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > The whole point with ICANN in this discussion > is that it is NOT a > "global institution". > > Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global > and it is institutionalized it is, in my definition, a > global institution. And ICANN more or less meets both > criteria. I am sure you understand that no global > polity will spring perfectly into being. > > > Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN > is an organization, led and driven by private companies and > interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be > somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of > this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details > and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it > doesn't fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. > I think your definition is too inclusive here. > > > rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, > whatever the genuineness > of your intentions and efforts. > > Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice > between the DNS and IP addresses being taken over by > states/IGOs or some modification and evolution of the > ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. > > > You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the > ICANN vs. ITU debate? > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 15:12:56 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:12:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909201048l749063efob5508c0f1558a767@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <954259bd0909201048l749063efob5508c0f1558a767@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bertrand, On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Meryem, > The coming year will be an opportunity to develop such a debate. Why is > staying out of the discussion helping ICANN evolve in the right way ? There > will be opportunities for all actors in the coming months to weigh in, > because the discussion on the organization's future will develop. I hope > participants on this list will use them. I say it on a personal basis and in > my current functions. and very well said it was indeed! -- 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 From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Sep 20 15:15:16 2009 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:15:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909201048l749063efob5508c0f1558a767@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <954259bd0909201048l749063efob5508c0f1558a767@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <82E6A4E6-0FB2-45D9-93EC-8EDE31852D11@post.harvard.edu> > ) first, the text of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation contain the > following words : ... > Couldn't these words be qualified as defining a social purpose ? > Whyever - given the realities of actual behavior, over numerous years now - would we expect these words to describe fact on the ground? > There will be opportunities for all actors in the coming months to > weigh in > Actual history makes clear that only favored interests will be heard. ('Public' means a fair hearing for all - actually, the definition can be simple.) Why, in that case, would anyone waste more time, vainly expecting a hearing? David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 15:29:58 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:29:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <82E6A4E6-0FB2-45D9-93EC-8EDE31852D11@post.harvard.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <954259bd0909201048l749063efob5508c0f1558a767@mail.gmail.com> <82E6A4E6-0FB2-45D9-93EC-8EDE31852D11@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM, David Allen wrote: >> )  first, the text of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation contain the >> following words : > > ... >> >> Couldn't these words be qualified as defining a social purpose ? >> > Whyever - given the realities of actual behavior, over numerous years now - > would we expect these words to describe fact on the ground? >> >> There will be opportunities for all actors in the coming months to weigh >> in >> > Actual history makes clear that only favored interests will be heard. Actual history makes it clear that only people who speak up have a chance to be heard. My experience in ICANN processes is radically different than yours. I speak, am heard, and have an effect on policy issues that I care about. If we leave it to corporates, and don't voice our opinions, then of course only their voices will be heard. -- 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 From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Sep 20 15:42:06 2009 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:42:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <954259bd0909201048l749063efob5508c0f1558a767@mail.gmail.com> <82E6A4E6-0FB2-45D9-93EC-8EDE31852D11@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Sep 20, 2009, at 3:29 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM, David Allen > wrote: >>> ) first, the text of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation contain the >>> following words : >> >> ... >>> >>> Couldn't these words be qualified as defining a social purpose ? >>> >> Whyever - given the realities of actual behavior, over numerous >> years now - >> would we expect these words to describe fact on the ground? >>> >>> There will be opportunities for all actors in the coming months to >>> weigh >>> in >>> >> Actual history makes clear that only favored interests will be heard. > > Actual history makes it clear that only people who speak up have a > chance to be heard. > > My experience in ICANN processes is radically different than yours. I > speak, am heard, and have an effect on policy issues that I care > about. > > If we leave it to corporates, and don't voice our opinions, then of > course only their voices will be heard. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim McTim, As we know, I have greatest respect for you. At the same time, a very large and representative swath of folks bring the exact opposite experience - from yours - to the table of history. As said, that leaves no reason to waste time further. Cheers, David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 20 16:11:39 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom - The GA In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <72001.3209.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Bertrand,   This response is no joke either.  There was a place called the General Assembly within ICANN. It was dismantled but not destroyed. It was the place for interested non-affiliated individuals to participate in ICANN without endorsing it. In the 2006 restructuring it was denuded. But for some MOU reason it was left as a skeleton. It has been kept alive though beaten and censored and whipped into submission. It is part of the GNSO.   http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm 2006 XX5.1 and X3.4   http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/index.html#200709   It even has rules, like here - that are seldom followed, but there. http://www.geolang.com/draftGAListRules5.htm   If you doubt my history or the existence Check with past Chairmen; Gaetano and Younger. Every CEO, Chairman and GNSO Chair has participated there. If you think it does not have an impact check with Avri and Beckstrom who have recently posted there.   Those of us there have fought hard and diligently to keep an open forum alive in ICANN.  There is a place to work within ICANN without endorsing ICANN.     --- On Sun, 9/20/09, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Meryem Marzouki" Date: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 4:34 PM Dear Meryem, Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two complementary questions : - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I understand you well) ? These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the agenda in the post-JPA framework. Best Bertrand The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a "global institution". Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into being. Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is an organization, led and driven by private companies and interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think your definition is too inclusive here. rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness of your intentions and efforts. Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the ICANN vs. ITU debate? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----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 Sep 20 16:48:05 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <598095.99064.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It has been sometimes said that I am obnoxious and cantankorous and obstenant and that my limited knowlege coupled with my persistent demand for adherence to formally adopted rules makes me a pain in the butt.  However I find that while no one at ICANN comes out and says "yeah your right we were wrong" ICANN routinely changes course when a fault is pointed out. Nothing earth shattering but enough to notice a shift in the rudder.   If there is a way to participate in ICANN and not endorse it  ---  that is a good thing. And it exists. --- On Sun, 9/20/09, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "David Allen" Date: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 7:29 PM On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM, David Allen wrote: >> )  first, the text of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation contain the >> following words : > > ... >> >> Couldn't these words be qualified as defining a social purpose ? >> > Whyever - given the realities of actual behavior, over numerous years now - > would we expect these words to describe fact on the ground? >> >> There will be opportunities for all actors in the coming months to weigh >> in >> > Actual history makes clear that only favored interests will be heard. Actual history makes it clear that only people who speak up have a chance to be heard. My experience in ICANN processes is radically different than yours.  I speak, am heard, and have an effect on policy issues that I care about. If we leave it to corporates, and don't voice our opinions, then of course only their voices will be heard. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 20 17:08:53 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:08:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > don't tell us that policies favoring social justice imply the > soviets. True, they imply that a market economy shouldn't be a jungle > of uncontrolled economic liberalism. Ah, but you make the same mistake, only more so. You assume that economic liberalism means no social obligations and no nothing. And you're more stuck in this than I am. (And please don't lecture me about universal service obligations in a liberalized environment - I literally wrote the book on that.) The point is that the dismantling of telephone monopolies was done to promote economic liberalism, and often it meant scaling back or even rejecting certain forms of social "justice" regulation or, at least, choosing to try to achieve the same ends through means that were more efficient and impinged less on economic freedom. And as a result we got a positive sum game in which there was far more growth and far lower prices and more diversity and many other benefits to the public, most of which were _not_ produced by regulatory obligations but some of which were. And it is a historical fact that the impetus to do this did not come from the left, and never would have come from the left; typically the left gets in the way of such changes because of its dedication to static social redistributive bargains and its endemic hostility to markets in any form. But, if you are saying that you favor expanding and harnessing economic liberalism as long as some basic social obligations can be taken care of then we will have very little to argue about. Somehow, we keep arguing at a more fundamental level so I think that's not what you are saying. ;-) --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 20 17:25:43 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:25:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] is icann an institution? In-Reply-To: <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I think Bertrand's questions are good ones. I really don't understand your concept of an institution; and since economic institutionalism is my paradigm that's a problem. Institutions can be social or anti-social - a large part of the institutional economics literature, and what made it more interesting than its neoclassical predecessors was the recognition that things like parasitism, exploitation and zero-sum or negative sum games can be and are often institutionalized, via path-dependent processes. One should not confuse a normative appraisal of ICANN with its status as an Institution. Institution is a value-neutral term in my lexicon. ICANN does have a social purpose: it is the institution that resolves conflicts over property rights and coordination of the Internet's naming system. (See Ruling the Root, 2002) It is the arena through which stakeholders with power over various functions in the Internet addressing system come to terms. That's how institutions emerge - via conflict. Governments are now buying into it, via the GAC, which gives them a dangerous extra-constitutional, extra legal power to make policy. GAC is becoming institutionalized, partly through sheer inertia, partly because certain interests like or benefit from the model. Therefore ICANN is an institution; a pretty friggin messy and loose one, still, but it performs an ordering function and it defines and assigns property rights. If you've read the miserable IRT report, you see that it's still a growing one: it is superseding trademark law with ICANN-defined rules taken to amazing new extremes, the integration of domain name registration into a reservation and matching system of globally protected marks. A rapid suspension service. And again, back to Bertrand, ok, if you and Parminder don't think we should work through ICANN give us viable strategies and scenarios for getting _liberal_ and democratic freedoms in to global governance of the Internet some other way. I'm all ears. --MM ________________________________ From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Bertrand, you intervention in this discussion might also help in case there is a difference in the concept of "institution" in French and in English.. My point is not with the global or not global nature of ICANN. It is rather with qualifying it or not as an "institution". I already acknowledged that it makes global decision, impacting the whole world: not sure it makes it truly global, but sort of. I also acknowledge that, say, a really big multinational firm (whatever its sector of activity: finance, security/military, industry, service..) could be a global entity, in the same sense. But an institution, at least in my understanding, has something to do with social order. For better or for worse (an institution is not necessarily democratic), but its purpose is social (like in society, not necessarily like in social justice). I don't think ICANN has any social purpose. Not that it doesn't deal with issues having highly social implications -- it does, but the point is that it has NOT been designed as such. And, to be honest, I don't think there is any reasonable hope to modify it so that its start looking like an institution. Hope this starts answering your questions, and that this might explain why I think CS (nor governments, BTW) shouldn't *participate* in its processes since, yes, they legitimize it this way, and they make it somewhat look like an institution, when it is not, and wont become, in my opinion. Best, Meryem Le 20 sept. 09 à 18:34, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : Dear Meryem, Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two complementary questions : - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I understand you well) ? These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the agenda in the post-JPA framework. Best Bertrand The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a "global institution". Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into being. Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is an organization, led and driven by private companies and interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think your definition is too inclusive here. rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the genuineness of your intentions and efforts. Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the ICANN vs. ITU debate? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 20 17:37:10 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Anja: Excellent points. Quick and relatively superficial answer due to time constraints: we work for the democratization of ICANN, or rather, the recognition of rights by it (the liberal element) and the improvement of representation (the democratic element). I believe that we attack this problem at the sectoral level only - in Internet governance exclusively. Any attempt to replace or eliminate states comprehensively would be precipitous and dangerous for the reasons you cite. I think the info-communications sector can be detached from the nation-state more readily because of its more transnational nature. > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:52 PM > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > > Following on from Bertrand's email, I have an additional question, > triggered by the exchange between Milton and Parminder. > > If it is denationalisation that we are striving for, rather than > internationalisation, then what will democratic representation in this > global polity look like, and how will it be achieved? It is fine to say > that new models should not allow for a corporate take-over, but how to > ensure that, especially in a world where the predominance of > corporations goes questioned so little? Although state representation > is no guarantee that the interests of marginalised people in the South > will be taken into account, no other system of representation has > managed to do a better job at the global level so far, and it remains > tremendously unclear to me how corporates can be entrusted with the > public interest without clear government oversight. If I am to think > away states, I would like to have an idea of what the alternatives would > look like. That would also help in getting more of a sense of whether > the path to a democratic global polity might indeed pass through ICANN, > or not. > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear Meryem, > > > > Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the > > "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two > > complementary questions : > > - what would be required in your view to make ICANN truly global ? > > what kind of modification ? > > - and can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's > > processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I understand > > you well) ? > > > > These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very > > difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I sincerely > > am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of ICANN's > > accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the agenda in the > > post-JPA framework. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > The whole point with ICANN in this discussion > > is that it is NOT a > > "global institution". > > > > Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global > > and it is institutionalized it is, in my definition, a > > global institution. And ICANN more or less meets both > > criteria. I am sure you understand that no global > > polity will spring perfectly into being. > > > > > > Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN > > is an organization, led and driven by private companies and > > interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be > > somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of > > this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details > > and subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it > > doesn't fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. > > I think your definition is too inclusive here. > > > > > > rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, > > whatever the genuineness > > of your intentions and efforts. > > > > Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice > > between the DNS and IP addresses being taken over by > > states/IGOs or some modification and evolution of the > > ICANN/RIR regime I've made my choice. > > > > > > You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the > > ICANN vs. ITU debate? > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > > the Information Society > > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > > Foreign and European Affairs > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > > Saint Exupéry > > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Sep 20 20:54:14 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:54:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2B863B6D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, First, to correct my colleague Milton's historical inaccuracy: deregulation in US got its start under Nobel Peace Prize-winning/global social activist President Jimmy Carter. Who appointed an academic to dismantle a traditional regulatory regime. Carter in US politics is left of center. Ok Carter got all the accolades long after his Presidency, point is a liberal democrat got late 21st Century capitalist reform ball rolling, initially through airlines, before it got to telecoms. If we went around the world we could find many other examples where left of center parties did the heavy lifting for regulatory reform, even if the poster children for many may be Reagan and Thatcher, who get too much credit- or blame - for what Carter started. ; ) Second, re ICANN as an institution, there I do agree with Milton and Bertrand and others that it is (an institution); and that it is worth our collective effort in fixing it, bit by bit; even if I only periodically have time to wade into its murky waters myself. At its TCP/IP protocol core, the Internet is public, and was enfused from day one with a -dare I say it - socialist, anti-private property view - of itself. It's all about network sharing after all. On an explicitly non-proprietary basis. OK lots of cool things have been added on, from many individuals and companies. But still. ICANN was created, essentially, as a global NGO to keep the Internet that way (non-proprietary, serving the global public interest) just as it says in its charter as Bertrand reminds us. The fact that a high-minded institution has been a victim of regulatory capture from birth is, well, just a fact. It doesn't mean it can never do better, and in many ways it has incrementally improved. Even if the public 'up yours' to civil society recently delivered from ICANN's staff and board to all of us in civil society reminds us that....we're not dealing with Jimmy Carter here. I don't disagree with Meryem and Anja that states (and of course civil society) matter too, just that Milton, in spite of his dissing of Carter and everyone left of center, has a point re ICANN. The institution of the Internet. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 5:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: RE: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > don't tell us that policies favoring social justice imply the > soviets. True, they imply that a market economy shouldn't be a jungle > of uncontrolled economic liberalism. Ah, but you make the same mistake, only more so. You assume that economic liberalism means no social obligations and no nothing. And you're more stuck in this than I am. (And please don't lecture me about universal service obligations in a liberalized environment - I literally wrote the book on that.) The point is that the dismantling of telephone monopolies was done to promote economic liberalism, and often it meant scaling back or even rejecting certain forms of social "justice" regulation or, at least, choosing to try to achieve the same ends through means that were more efficient and impinged less on economic freedom. And as a result we got a positive sum game in which there was far more growth and far lower prices and more diversity and many other benefits to the public, most of which were _not_ produced by regulatory obligations but some of which were. And it is a historical fact that the impetus to do this did not come from the left, and never would have come from the left; typically the left gets in the way of such changes because of its dedication to static social redistributive bargains and its endemic hostility to markets in any form. But, if you are saying that you favor expanding and harnessing economic liberalism as long as some basic social obligations can be taken care of then we will have very little to argue about. Somehow, we keep arguing at a more fundamental level so I think that's not what you are saying. ;-) --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 03:40:31 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:40:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> In the long run, I think, a de-nationalized system of governance would have to re-invent many of the governmental wheels that were thrown overboard at the outset. While it is true that governments often seem not to understand the implications of transnational regulation, we are still in need of institutions that balance the dynamics of profit making against the public interest. Take Google Books, for example. I am glad that there is a Department of Justice (plus some other governments and supra-governmental bodies) able to say no to this private settlement that would have led to a monopoly over orphan books. I don't see how norms (understood in the broad sense) can be enforced, and also appealed against, without governments and courts. At the same time, private bodies such as ICANN seem to adopt over the years more and more of the normative criteria and mechanisms that are typical for the democratic nation state. The issue of accountability is a good example. Yet, democratic governments offer much better accountability provisions than any private agency. Thus, transforming governmental structures to allow for transnational, multi-stakeholder-based rule making sounds much more realistic to me than to altogether abandon the procedural achievements of the nation state. jeanette jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > Anja: Excellent points. Quick and relatively superficial answer due > to time constraints: we work for the democratization of ICANN, or > rather, the recognition of rights by it (the liberal element) and the > improvement of representation (the democratic element). I believe > that we attack this problem at the sectoral level only - in Internet > governance exclusively. Any attempt to replace or eliminate states > comprehensively would be precipitous and dangerous for the reasons > you cite. I think the info-communications sector can be detached from > the nation-state more readily because of its more transnational > nature. > >> -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs >> [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:52 >> PM To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom >> >> >> Following on from Bertrand's email, I have an additional question, >> triggered by the exchange between Milton and Parminder. >> >> If it is denationalisation that we are striving for, rather than >> internationalisation, then what will democratic representation in >> this global polity look like, and how will it be achieved? It is >> fine to say that new models should not allow for a corporate >> take-over, but how to ensure that, especially in a world where the >> predominance of corporations goes questioned so little? Although >> state representation is no guarantee that the interests of >> marginalised people in the South will be taken into account, no >> other system of representation has managed to do a better job at >> the global level so far, and it remains tremendously unclear to me >> how corporates can be entrusted with the public interest without >> clear government oversight. If I am to think away states, I would >> like to have an idea of what the alternatives would look like. >> That would also help in getting more of a sense of whether the path >> to a democratic global polity might indeed pass through ICANN, or >> not. >> >> Thanks, Anja >> >> >> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> Dear Meryem, >>> >>> Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the >>> "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two >>> complementary questions : - what would be required in your view >>> to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and >>> can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's >>> processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I >>> understand you well) ? >>> >>> These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very >>> difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I >>> sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of >>> ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the >>> agenda in the post-JPA framework. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a >>> "global institution". >>> >>> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is >>> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. >>> And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you >>> understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into >>> being. >>> >>> >>> Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is >>> an organization, led and driven by private companies and >>> interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be >>> somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of >>> this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and >>> subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't >>> fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think >>> your definition is too inclusive here. >>> >>> >>> rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the >>> genuineness of your intentions and efforts. >>> >>> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the >>> DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some >>> modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my >>> choice. >>> >>> >>> You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the >>> ICANN vs. ITU debate? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial >>> pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >>> Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >>> Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel >>> : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine >>> de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than >>> uniting humans") 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 05:24:48 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:24:48 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871953C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeanette this is the right point. And this is the chalenge for researchers. In the IG WGIG definition we said that th stakeholders participate in IG "in their respective roles". This langauge came out of the understanding that all stakeholders has to be involved, no stakeholder can substitute the other one but each stakeholder has to bring its core competences to the inclusive "multilayer multiplayer mechanism". It is a question of Internet co-governance and here we are still in a very experimental phase at an early stage. A PhD to clear "the respective roles" would be great. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Mo 21.09.2009 09:40 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Anja Kovacs Betreff: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In the long run, I think, a de-nationalized system of governance would have to re-invent many of the governmental wheels that were thrown overboard at the outset. While it is true that governments often seem not to understand the implications of transnational regulation, we are still in need of institutions that balance the dynamics of profit making against the public interest. Take Google Books, for example. I am glad that there is a Department of Justice (plus some other governments and supra-governmental bodies) able to say no to this private settlement that would have led to a monopoly over orphan books. I don't see how norms (understood in the broad sense) can be enforced, and also appealed against, without governments and courts. At the same time, private bodies such as ICANN seem to adopt over the years more and more of the normative criteria and mechanisms that are typical for the democratic nation state. The issue of accountability is a good example. Yet, democratic governments offer much better accountability provisions than any private agency. Thus, transforming governmental structures to allow for transnational, multi-stakeholder-based rule making sounds much more realistic to me than to altogether abandon the procedural achievements of the nation state. jeanette jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > Anja: Excellent points. Quick and relatively superficial answer due > to time constraints: we work for the democratization of ICANN, or > rather, the recognition of rights by it (the liberal element) and the > improvement of representation (the democratic element). I believe > that we attack this problem at the sectoral level only - in Internet > governance exclusively. Any attempt to replace or eliminate states > comprehensively would be precipitous and dangerous for the reasons > you cite. I think the info-communications sector can be detached from > the nation-state more readily because of its more transnational > nature. > >> -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs >> [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:52 >> PM To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom >> >> >> Following on from Bertrand's email, I have an additional question, >> triggered by the exchange between Milton and Parminder. >> >> If it is denationalisation that we are striving for, rather than >> internationalisation, then what will democratic representation in >> this global polity look like, and how will it be achieved? It is >> fine to say that new models should not allow for a corporate >> take-over, but how to ensure that, especially in a world where the >> predominance of corporations goes questioned so little? Although >> state representation is no guarantee that the interests of >> marginalised people in the South will be taken into account, no >> other system of representation has managed to do a better job at >> the global level so far, and it remains tremendously unclear to me >> how corporates can be entrusted with the public interest without >> clear government oversight. If I am to think away states, I would >> like to have an idea of what the alternatives would look like. >> That would also help in getting more of a sense of whether the path >> to a democratic global polity might indeed pass through ICANN, or >> not. >> >> Thanks, Anja >> >> >> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> Dear Meryem, >>> >>> Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the >>> "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two >>> complementary questions : - what would be required in your view >>> to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and >>> can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's >>> processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I >>> understand you well) ? >>> >>> These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very >>> difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I >>> sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of >>> ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the >>> agenda in the post-JPA framework. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a >>> "global institution". >>> >>> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is >>> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. >>> And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you >>> understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into >>> being. >>> >>> >>> Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is >>> an organization, led and driven by private companies and >>> interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be >>> somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of >>> this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and >>> subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't >>> fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think >>> your definition is too inclusive here. >>> >>> >>> rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the >>> genuineness of your intentions and efforts. >>> >>> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the >>> DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some >>> modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my >>> choice. >>> >>> >>> You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the >>> ICANN vs. ITU debate? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial >>> pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >>> Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >>> Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel >>> : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine >>> de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than >>> uniting humans") 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 06:00:29 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:00:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4AB74EBD.4020200@cavebear.com> On 09/21/2009 12:40 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > At the same time, private bodies such as ICANN seem to adopt over the > years more and more of the normative criteria and mechanisms that are > typical for the democratic nation state. Unfortunately many ill acts may have been adopted and have ossified into near-irreversiblity by the time that those democratic criteria and mechanisms begin to take effect. Using ICANN as the example - Over the decade of its life so far it has adopted many rules and procedures that greatly offend even the most dull-witted sense of democratic accountability. These include its pro-trademark UDRP and privacy-intrusive whois rules. Even if ICANN were this night to become a paragon of Periclean democracy those noxious rules would remain fixed in place. It strikes me that if one adopts a gradualistic (and pragmatic) strategy towards the introduction of democratic ideas into bodies of internet governance that one ought also to incorporate into that strategy the idea that ill acts done by those bodies be revisited and should cease if they can not gain sufficient positive support for their continuance. --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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 21 06:22:55 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:22:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2B863B6D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <921210.46090.qm@web110110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com>,<4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2B863B6D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E7F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Lee: Burst out laughing and the characterization of Carter as "left of center" and probably many Europeans did too. Yeah, and Obama's a commie, too. OK, if you want to call the sort of economic and social liberalism that he (and I) represent left of center that's fine with me, but it sure isn't what I was dissing. More importantly, Carter's political initiatives followed 20 years of intellectual development by the law and economics school (Coase, Milton Friedman, etc.) and represents exactly the kind of "neoliberalism" that the real left loves to diss. ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Meryem Marzouki Subject: RE: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Hi, First, to correct my colleague Milton's historical inaccuracy: deregulation in US got its start under Nobel Peace Prize-winning/global social activist President Jimmy Carter. Who appointed an academic to dismantle a traditional regulatory regime. Carter in US politics is left of center. Ok Carter got all the accolades long after his Presidency, point is a liberal democrat got late 21st Century capitalist reform ball rolling, initially through airlines, before it got to telecoms. If we went around the world we could find many other examples where left of center parties did the heavy lifting for regulatory reform, even if the poster children for many may be Reagan and Thatcher, who get too much credit- or blame - for what Carter started. ; ) Second, re ICANN as an institution, there I do agree with Milton and Bertrand and others that it is (an institution); and that it is worth our collective effort in fixing it, bit by bit; even if I only periodically have time to wade into its murky waters myself. At its TCP/IP protocol core, the Internet is public, and was enfused from day one with a -dare I say it - socialist, anti-private property view - of itself. It's all about network sharing after all. On an explicitly non-proprietary basis. OK lots of cool things have been added on, from many individuals and companies. But still. ICANN was created, essentially, as a global NGO to keep the Internet that way (non-proprietary, serving the global public interest) just as it says in its charter as Bertrand reminds us. The fact that a high-minded institution has been a victim of regulatory capture from birth is, well, just a fact. It doesn't mean it can never do better, and in many ways it has incrementally improved. Even if the public 'up yours' to civil society recently delivered from ICANN's staff and board to all of us in civil society reminds us that....we're not dealing with Jimmy Carter here. I don't disagree with Meryem and Anja that states (and of course civil society) matter too, just that Milton, in spite of his dissing of Carter and everyone left of center, has a point re ICANN. The institution of the Internet. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 5:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: RE: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom > don't tell us that policies favoring social justice imply the > soviets. True, they imply that a market economy shouldn't be a jungle > of uncontrolled economic liberalism. Ah, but you make the same mistake, only more so. You assume that economic liberalism means no social obligations and no nothing. And you're more stuck in this than I am. (And please don't lecture me about universal service obligations in a liberalized environment - I literally wrote the book on that.) The point is that the dismantling of telephone monopolies was done to promote economic liberalism, and often it meant scaling back or even rejecting certain forms of social "justice" regulation or, at least, choosing to try to achieve the same ends through means that were more efficient and impinged less on economic freedom. And as a result we got a positive sum game in which there was far more growth and far lower prices and more diversity and many other benefits to the public, most of which were _not_ produced by regulatory obligations but some of which were. And it is a historical fact that the impetus to do this did not come from the left, and never would have come from the left; typically the left gets in the way of such changes because of its dedication to static social redistributive bargains and its endemic hostility to markets in any form. But, if you are saying that you favor expanding and harnessing economic liberalism as long as some basic social obligations can be taken care of then we will have very little to argue about. Somehow, we keep arguing at a more fundamental level so I think that's not what you are saying. ;-) --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 06:35:13 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:35:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >In the long run, I think, a de-nationalized system of governance would >have to re-invent many of the governmental wheels that were thrown >overboard at the outset. Jeanette: Precisely. These rights and procedures have to be reinvented or translated into the transnational sphere. And what's wrong with that? Thrown overboard? In transnational communicative action there ARE no procedural achievements of nation-states - or at least I will hold to that thesis until you can provide me with an example of one. At any rate let's not forget that some of the most valuable procedural and legal checks we are talking about are checks on _states_ not just private actors. Political economists have long exploded the myth that political institutions are somehow purely devoted to public interest and magically transforms the mystical will of "the people" into action. States often actuate and reflect dominant private interests. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 06:41:45 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:41:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871953C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871953C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Au contraire, Wolfgang, the WSIS concept of "respective roles" is a reactionary (and futile) attempt by nation-states to preserve the status quo, retaining for themselves something like "sovereignty" in the transnational sphere. Govts on top, business runs things, civil society runs around and brings food baskets to the hungry. It can't work. However this problem is solved, it won't be through some corporatist assignment of "roles" to such broad "stakeholder groups" but through mobilized people contending for their rights and creating an emergent transnational legal-political context. ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Anja Kovacs Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Jeanette this is the right point. And this is the chalenge for researchers. In the IG WGIG definition we said that th stakeholders participate in IG "in their respective roles". This langauge came out of the understanding that all stakeholders has to be involved, no stakeholder can substitute the other one but each stakeholder has to bring its core competences to the inclusive "multilayer multiplayer mechanism". It is a question of Internet co-governance and here we are still in a very experimental phase at an early stage. A PhD to clear "the respective roles" would be great. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Mo 21.09.2009 09:40 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Anja Kovacs Betreff: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In the long run, I think, a de-nationalized system of governance would have to re-invent many of the governmental wheels that were thrown overboard at the outset. While it is true that governments often seem not to understand the implications of transnational regulation, we are still in need of institutions that balance the dynamics of profit making against the public interest. Take Google Books, for example. I am glad that there is a Department of Justice (plus some other governments and supra-governmental bodies) able to say no to this private settlement that would have led to a monopoly over orphan books. I don't see how norms (understood in the broad sense) can be enforced, and also appealed against, without governments and courts. At the same time, private bodies such as ICANN seem to adopt over the years more and more of the normative criteria and mechanisms that are typical for the democratic nation state. The issue of accountability is a good example. Yet, democratic governments offer much better accountability provisions than any private agency. Thus, transforming governmental structures to allow for transnational, multi-stakeholder-based rule making sounds much more realistic to me than to altogether abandon the procedural achievements of the nation state. jeanette jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > Anja: Excellent points. Quick and relatively superficial answer due > to time constraints: we work for the democratization of ICANN, or > rather, the recognition of rights by it (the liberal element) and the > improvement of representation (the democratic element). I believe > that we attack this problem at the sectoral level only - in Internet > governance exclusively. Any attempt to replace or eliminate states > comprehensively would be precipitous and dangerous for the reasons > you cite. I think the info-communications sector can be detached from > the nation-state more readily because of its more transnational > nature. > >> -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs >> [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:52 >> PM To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom >> >> >> Following on from Bertrand's email, I have an additional question, >> triggered by the exchange between Milton and Parminder. >> >> If it is denationalisation that we are striving for, rather than >> internationalisation, then what will democratic representation in >> this global polity look like, and how will it be achieved? It is >> fine to say that new models should not allow for a corporate >> take-over, but how to ensure that, especially in a world where the >> predominance of corporations goes questioned so little? Although >> state representation is no guarantee that the interests of >> marginalised people in the South will be taken into account, no >> other system of representation has managed to do a better job at >> the global level so far, and it remains tremendously unclear to me >> how corporates can be entrusted with the public interest without >> clear government oversight. If I am to think away states, I would >> like to have an idea of what the alternatives would look like. >> That would also help in getting more of a sense of whether the path >> to a democratic global polity might indeed pass through ICANN, or >> not. >> >> Thanks, Anja >> >> >> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> Dear Meryem, >>> >>> Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the >>> "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two >>> complementary questions : - what would be required in your view >>> to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and >>> can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's >>> processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I >>> understand you well) ? >>> >>> These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very >>> difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I >>> sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of >>> ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the >>> agenda in the post-JPA framework. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a >>> "global institution". >>> >>> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is >>> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. >>> And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you >>> understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into >>> being. >>> >>> >>> Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is >>> an organization, led and driven by private companies and >>> interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be >>> somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of >>> this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and >>> subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't >>> fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think >>> your definition is too inclusive here. >>> >>> >>> rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the >>> genuineness of your intentions and efforts. >>> >>> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the >>> DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some >>> modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my >>> choice. >>> >>> >>> You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the >>> ICANN vs. ITU debate? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial >>> pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >>> Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >>> Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel >>> : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine >>> de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than >>> uniting humans") 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 07:08:13 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:08:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E80@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AB75E9D.2010904@wzb.eu> Milton, as you well know, re-inventing the wheel means to end up with the institutions or processes that were discarded at some point. I didn't claim that there are governmental achievements in the transnational space. Rather, I meant to say that national democratic institutions need to be transformed to make them effective outside of the nation state. I agree with you that it is problematic to associate governmental action with pursuing the public interest. Yet, I find it even more problematic to expect that the invisible hand of the market produces superior outcomes from a public interest point of view. The remarkable thing of the net neutrality debate was that, suddenly, the state as a regulator and norm enforcement agency came back into Internet Governance. Pragmatists are seeking to combine the best of both worlds. Isn't this what the discussion on transnational governance is about? The term de-nationalization suggests to me that we can do without governments. In any case, national resources such as the rule of law and related means of norm enforcement will remain necessary -and valuable -, no matter how global the regulatory objects are. jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: >> In the long run, I think, a de-nationalized system of governance >> would have to re-invent many of the governmental wheels that were >> thrown overboard at the outset. > > Jeanette: Precisely. These rights and procedures have to be > reinvented or translated into the transnational sphere. And what's > wrong with that? > > Thrown overboard? In transnational communicative action there ARE no > procedural achievements of nation-states - or at least I will hold to > that thesis until you can provide me with an example of one. > > At any rate let's not forget that some of the most valuable > procedural and legal checks we are talking about are checks on > _states_ not just private actors. Political economists have long > exploded the myth that political institutions are somehow purely > devoted to public interest and magically transforms the mystical will > of "the people" into action. States often actuate and reflect > dominant private interests. > > --MM > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 08:16:57 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:16:57 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <1253472742.19557.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB72DEF.2010305@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871953C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E81@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871953F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Milton: However this problem is solved, it won't be through some corporatist assignment of "roles" to such broad "stakeholder groups" but through mobilized people contending for their rights and creating an emergent transnational legal-political context. Wolfgang: In the long run I agree, but we live in a transitional phase (probably the next 50 years). So Co-Governance is the compromise for the time being. It is like the "constiutional monarchy" in the 17th century, a "division of labour" between the king and the parliament. However gradually the power moved from the palace to the parliament and the king in todays monarchy`s (like in Denmark the Queen) has just an symbolic role to play. If "mobilized people" are strong enough (on a transnational or de-nationalized level) probably governments will play just a "symbolic role" and parliaments become a "tourist attrraction" like Londons Buckingham Palace today. But there are sitll some ways to go. Good challenge for the 22nd century! ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Anja Kovacs Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom Jeanette this is the right point. And this is the chalenge for researchers. In the IG WGIG definition we said that th stakeholders participate in IG "in their respective roles". This langauge came out of the understanding that all stakeholders has to be involved, no stakeholder can substitute the other one but each stakeholder has to bring its core competences to the inclusive "multilayer multiplayer mechanism". It is a question of Internet co-governance and here we are still in a very experimental phase at an early stage. A PhD to clear "the respective roles" would be great. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Mo 21.09.2009 09:40 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Anja Kovacs Betreff: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom In the long run, I think, a de-nationalized system of governance would have to re-invent many of the governmental wheels that were thrown overboard at the outset. While it is true that governments often seem not to understand the implications of transnational regulation, we are still in need of institutions that balance the dynamics of profit making against the public interest. Take Google Books, for example. I am glad that there is a Department of Justice (plus some other governments and supra-governmental bodies) able to say no to this private settlement that would have led to a monopoly over orphan books. I don't see how norms (understood in the broad sense) can be enforced, and also appealed against, without governments and courts. At the same time, private bodies such as ICANN seem to adopt over the years more and more of the normative criteria and mechanisms that are typical for the democratic nation state. The issue of accountability is a good example. Yet, democratic governments offer much better accountability provisions than any private agency. Thus, transforming governmental structures to allow for transnational, multi-stakeholder-based rule making sounds much more realistic to me than to altogether abandon the procedural achievements of the nation state. jeanette jeanette Milton L Mueller wrote: > Anja: Excellent points. Quick and relatively superficial answer due > to time constraints: we work for the democratization of ICANN, or > rather, the recognition of rights by it (the liberal element) and the > improvement of representation (the democratic element). I believe > that we attack this problem at the sectoral level only - in Internet > governance exclusively. Any attempt to replace or eliminate states > comprehensively would be precipitous and dangerous for the reasons > you cite. I think the info-communications sector can be detached from > the nation-state more readily because of its more transnational > nature. > >> -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs >> [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:52 >> PM To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom >> >> >> Following on from Bertrand's email, I have an additional question, >> triggered by the exchange between Milton and Parminder. >> >> If it is denationalisation that we are striving for, rather than >> internationalisation, then what will democratic representation in >> this global polity look like, and how will it be achieved? It is >> fine to say that new models should not allow for a corporate >> take-over, but how to ensure that, especially in a world where the >> predominance of corporations goes questioned so little? Although >> state representation is no guarantee that the interests of >> marginalised people in the South will be taken into account, no >> other system of representation has managed to do a better job at >> the global level so far, and it remains tremendously unclear to me >> how corporates can be entrusted with the public interest without >> clear government oversight. If I am to think away states, I would >> like to have an idea of what the alternatives would look like. >> That would also help in getting more of a sense of whether the path >> to a democratic global polity might indeed pass through ICANN, or >> not. >> >> Thanks, Anja >> >> >> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> Dear Meryem, >>> >>> Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the >>> "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two >>> complementary questions : - what would be required in your view >>> to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and >>> can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's >>> processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I >>> understand you well) ? >>> >>> These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very >>> difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I >>> sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of >>> ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the >>> agenda in the post-JPA framework. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a >>> "global institution". >>> >>> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is >>> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution. >>> And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you >>> understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into >>> being. >>> >>> >>> Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is >>> an organization, led and driven by private companies and >>> interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be >>> somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of >>> this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and >>> subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't >>> fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think >>> your definition is too inclusive here. >>> >>> >>> rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the >>> genuineness of your intentions and efforts. >>> >>> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the >>> DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some >>> modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my >>> choice. >>> >>> >>> You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the >>> ICANN vs. ITU debate? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial >>> pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >>> Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >>> Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel >>> : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine >>> de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than >>> uniting humans") 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 10:27:54 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:27:54 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> Dear Milton and all > > > And again, back to Bertrand, ok, if you and Parminder don't think we > should work through ICANN give us viable strategies and scenarios for > getting _/liberal/_ and democratic freedoms in to global governance of > the Internet some other way. I'm all ears. > > --MM > > > Since you ears are opened : There are some other ways indeed, simply put ICANN in the place it belongs : a namespace service providers among other ones... ie opening the competition to DNS services. I Can ( monopoly ) --> We can ( competition ) For sure, as the phone business, ICANN, the "historic" namespace service provider would remain for years the main player, but the clock in cybertime is running fast. What I am all ears is about concrete proposals of multistakeholders governance within the new DNS/ classes/, learning from the flaws of ICANN. The governance models could be diverse and adapted to each/ class/. Bla bla should be avoided as well as declarations of noble principles everybody agrees upon, but that takes all the bandwidth required for an effective discussion. What is needed are effecient mechanisms with a sound legal basis, not with a mixed brew of corporate and governement "memos" and "agreements". I did propose sometimes ago the UNMSP scheme. http://unmsp.org Best Francis -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 11:50:00 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:50:00 -0400 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution? In-Reply-To: <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909210850s2020e581r5300e476b34e0a5d@mail.gmail.com> The "liberal and democratic freedoms" do not need to (as Milton Mueller put it) get "IN TOglobal governance of the Internet," (my CAPS) if by "IN TO" one means an introduction or a planting or a first time "reform." These rights/freedoms already exist, and they exist globally, by treaty, universally applicable international law, national constitutions, and rights generally (which do not depend upon governments to grant them, if they are fundamental in nature). These rights and freedoms are only being violated in certain quarters. Violation does not mean rights don't exist. Rights, like any valuable thing, are subject to being taken or violated. The challenge is how to stop the violations, not how to get rights or freedoms "in to global governance of the Internet." Or, put positively, the challenge is how to achieve actions that affirm the rights of all by getting others to remember their duties (not just their "rights") specifically to respect the rights of people other than themselves. "Noble Principles" There is no declaration or example of fundamental public policy regarding freedom or things associated with that -- regarding Internet governance or anywhere else -- that does not have underlying principles motivating it and providing its foundation. The noble, or ignoble, principles animating any and all given texts are either (1) stated transparently up front or (2) the noble or ignoble principles are implicit and thereby nontransparent to the text of the proposal or communication. Clarity of expression, as well as transparency, as well the duty to protect the rights principles themselves militate in favor of stating one's principles up front, for all to see. For the reasons in the above paragraph, I can't agree at all with Francis Muguet's comment below suggesting that "noble principles" discussions waste bandwidth. WIthout exception, every legislative proposal or constitutional case has policies, principles and rights proffered in its favor, whether noble or ignoble, and good governance surely means, at least to me, disclosing the underlying principles and assumptions that are the very core and spring of the proposal. Conversely, the most important freedoms and principles take big hits and suffer damage simply when they are not discussed, for whatever reason. In effect, these rights and principles are not at the "bargaining table" even though they are the most important players, enshrined in constitutions, treaties and the hearts of people around the world. I'll say the following regarding my own country, which has failed to secure rights in these regards miserably in recent times. Nevertheless, wiser heads in past times when states entered the Union between 1790 and most recently in 1959, nearly without exception placed clauses in the State Constitutions that speak to, and warn, people about the importance of "noble principles": "Frequent RECURRENCE to FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES is absolutely necessary to the preservation of liberty and free government." (aka "freedom and democracy") See, e.g., Washington State Constitution, Art. I, sec. 39 for one example of similar language. Either we recur to fundamental principles, in which case we have transparency of analysis and freedom and democracy are enabled (and ennobled), or else these principles are eroded or even damaged and destroyed simply because their contours are not even being considered (or perhaps a few don't want the principles considered or revealed, in some cases). This is not a minor point. It's not OK to not keep the most important principles, noble or otherwise, a secret, nor to claim they are boring or what have you. In my view, No reasonable person ought to disagree with that, but what they can say is that the applicable principles are different ones, or perhaps even not "noble" ones. Every text or proposal has principles animating it, they need to be disclosed. Transparency of principles is not wasted bandwith, nor is frequent recurrence or frequent reminders about what's most important wasting time, either. Even if each of us is individually highly familiar with the principles, others may benefit from a reminder, and in any case DISCLOSURE is necessary without exception for transparent and intellectually honest discussion or debate. Technical detailed nuances oftentimes act to mask real issues at the level of fundamental rights. Nobody should, accidentally or on purpose, be allowed to redefine what is really a fundamental rights issue as a pure issue of high tech or bureaucratic administration. I don't say that's the intent of any one here, but this is the danger of nontransparency as to fundamental principles in any given area. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/21/09, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > Dear Milton and all >> >> >> And again, back to Bertrand, ok, if you and Parminder don't think we >> should work through ICANN give us viable strategies and scenarios for >> getting _/liberal/_ and democratic freedoms in to global governance of >> the Internet some other way. I'm all ears. >> >> --MM >> >> >> > Since you ears are opened : > There are some other ways indeed, simply put ICANN in the place it > belongs : > a namespace service providers among other ones... > ie opening the competition to DNS services. > > I Can ( monopoly ) --> We can ( competition ) > > For sure, as the phone business, > ICANN, the "historic" namespace service provider would remain for years > the main player, but the clock in cybertime is running fast. > > What I am all ears is about concrete proposals of multistakeholders > governance within > the new DNS/ classes/, learning from the flaws of ICANN. > The governance models could be diverse and adapted to each/ class/. > > Bla bla should be avoided as well as declarations of noble principles > everybody agrees upon, but that takes all the bandwidth required > for an effective discussion. > > What is needed are effecient mechanisms with a sound legal basis, > not with a mixed brew of corporate and governement "memos" > and "agreements". > I did propose sometimes ago the UNMSP scheme. > http://unmsp.org > > Best > > Francis > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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/recherche/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 > ------------------------------------------------------ > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 12:10:00 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:10:00 -0400 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> On 21 Sep 2009, at 10:27, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > What I am all ears is about concrete proposals of multistakeholders > governance within > the new DNS classes, first someone has to figure out if new DNS classes are practical or even fully technically possible as the protocols currently stand. from my investigations it looks like any such efforts would take many years of technical protocol work and standards efforts as well as private network testing to determine whether they could be introduced without risking network instability. i think work on governance of such schemes might be somewhat premature - maybe even a decade premature. 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 muguet at mdpi.net Mon Sep 21 13:14:22 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:14:22 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> Message-ID: <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> Dear Avri >> What I am all ears is about concrete proposals of multistakeholders >> governance within >> the new DNS classes, > > first someone has to figure out if new DNS classes are practical or > even fully technically possible as the protocols currently stand. > except for some fields like the CNAME that you mentioned at the workshop, almost everything is in the RFCs > from my investigations it looks like any such efforts would take many > years of technical protocol work and standards efforts as well as > private network testing experimentation should come first, as I always said > to determine whether they could be introduced without risking network > instability. I do not understand what you mean by network instability ? You meant service instability ? There are just independant yet interoperable naming services. If one breaks down, how it should affect others ? ICANN in 2001 recommended the use of /classes/.... as I repeatdly said in my presentations... http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm /Moreover, it should be noted that the original design of the DNS provides a facility for future extensions that accommodates the possibility of safely deploying multiple roots on the public Internet for experimental and other purposes. As noted in RFC 1034 , the DNS includes a "class" tag on each resource record, which allows resource records of different classes to be distinguished even though they are commingled on the public Internet. For resource records within the standard root-server system, this class tag is set to "IN"; other values have been standardized for particular uses, including 255 possible values designated for "private use" that are particularly suited to experimentation.^11 / /As described in a recent proposal within the IETF,^12 this "class" facility allows an alternative DNS namespace to be operated from different root servers in a manner that does not interfere with the stable operation of the existing authoritative root-server system. Those that have deployed alternative roots have not used a different class designation, however, choosing instead to have their resource records masquerade as emanating from the standard root, and creating the potential for disruption of other's operations./ /In an ever-evolving Internet, ultimately there may be better architectures for getting the job done wherethe need for a single, authoritative root is not an issue. But that is not the case today. And the transition to such an architecture, should it emerge, would require community-based approaches. In the interim, responsible experimentation should be encouraged, but it should not be done in a manner that affects those who do not consent after being informed of the character of the experiment./ / /I feel encouraged... ;-) Could you comment on the 2001 ICANN statement ? One may also note in this paper that is underlined that *Competition as a Value Guiding the Internet's Technical Management * I share this value.... > i think work on governance of such schemes might be somewhat premature > - maybe even a decade premature. This is the essence of research is not of being mature, it is about looking beyond tomorrow... and it might come sooner than expected... who knows ? there are many factors coming into play We might argue about the probabilities, but the stakes are so high, that disregarding this possibility would be unwise. Best Francis > > 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 > > . > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 13:22:40 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:22:40 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution? In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909210850s2020e581r5300e476b34e0a5d@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <76f819dd0909210850s2020e581r5300e476b34e0a5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AB7B660.4010208@mdpi.net> Dear Paul > For the reasons in the above paragraph, I can't agree at all with > Francis Muguet's comment below suggesting that "noble principles" > discussions waste bandwidth. > You did not read me correctly, sorry , I wrote /Declarations of noble principles *everybody agrees upon*/ Certainly declarations of principle on something that is not agreed upon by all stakeholders like network neutrality would certainly matters... Concerning also the networks of things... also there are serious issues that should matter and have not being discussed enough so far... What is needed is not to discuss issues that are well agreed upon again and again, but to go towards the difficult topics Best Francis > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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/recherche/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 >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 14:53:51 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:53:51 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution? Message-ID: <30762636.1253559231856.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Paul and all, Of course I completely agree. Unfortunately there are some amongst us and our fellow colegues that would prefer something different that would implicitly suggest and/or require that our rights and duties be delegated without our foreknowledge or expressed permission to some loosly defined body of so called "Wise Men" for reasons that may or may not be in any or most individuals bests interests. -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Lehto >Sent: Sep 21, 2009 10:50 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Dr. Francis MUGUET" >Cc: Milton L Mueller , "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" >Subject: Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution? > >The "liberal and democratic freedoms" do not need to (as Milton >Mueller put it) get "IN TOglobal governance of the Internet," (my >CAPS) if by "IN TO" one means an introduction or a planting or a first >time "reform." > >These rights/freedoms already exist, and they exist globally, by >treaty, universally applicable international law, national >constitutions, and rights generally (which do not depend upon >governments to grant them, if they are fundamental in nature). These >rights and freedoms are only being violated in certain quarters. >Violation does not mean rights don't exist. Rights, like any valuable >thing, are subject to being taken or violated. > >The challenge is how to stop the violations, not how to get rights or >freedoms "in to global governance of the Internet." > >Or, put positively, the challenge is how to achieve actions that >affirm the rights of all by getting others to remember their duties >(not just their "rights") specifically to respect the rights of people >other than themselves. > >"Noble Principles" >There is no declaration or example of fundamental public policy >regarding freedom or things associated with that -- regarding Internet >governance or anywhere else -- that does not have underlying >principles motivating it and providing its foundation. > >The noble, or ignoble, principles animating any and all given texts >are either (1) stated transparently up front or (2) the noble or >ignoble principles are implicit and thereby nontransparent to the text >of the proposal or communication. > >Clarity of expression, as well as transparency, as well the duty to >protect the rights principles themselves militate in favor of stating >one's principles up front, for all to see. > >For the reasons in the above paragraph, I can't agree at all with >Francis Muguet's comment below suggesting that "noble principles" >discussions waste bandwidth. > >WIthout exception, every legislative proposal or constitutional case >has policies, principles and rights proffered in its favor, whether >noble or ignoble, and good governance surely means, at least to me, >disclosing the underlying principles and assumptions that are the very >core and spring of the proposal. > >Conversely, the most important freedoms and principles take big hits >and suffer damage simply when they are not discussed, for whatever >reason. In effect, these rights and principles are not at the >"bargaining table" even though they are the most important players, >enshrined in constitutions, treaties and the hearts of people around >the world. > >I'll say the following regarding my own country, which has failed to >secure rights in these regards miserably in recent times. >Nevertheless, wiser heads in past times when states entered the Union >between 1790 and most recently in 1959, nearly without exception >placed clauses in the State Constitutions that speak to, and warn, >people about the importance of "noble principles": > >"Frequent RECURRENCE to FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES is absolutely necessary >to the preservation of liberty and free government." (aka "freedom and >democracy") >See, e.g., Washington State Constitution, Art. I, sec. 39 for one >example of similar language. > >Either we recur to fundamental principles, in which case we have >transparency of analysis and freedom and democracy are enabled (and >ennobled), or else these principles are eroded or even damaged and >destroyed simply because their contours are not even being considered >(or perhaps a few don't want the principles considered or revealed, in >some cases). > >This is not a minor point. It's not OK to not keep the most important >principles, noble or otherwise, a secret, nor to claim they are boring >or what have you. In my view, No reasonable person ought to disagree >with that, but what they can say is that the applicable principles are >different ones, or perhaps even not "noble" ones. > >Every text or proposal has principles animating it, they need to be >disclosed. Transparency of principles is not wasted bandwith, nor is >frequent recurrence or frequent reminders about what's most important >wasting time, either. Even if each of us is individually highly >familiar with the principles, others may benefit from a reminder, and >in any case DISCLOSURE is necessary without exception for transparent >and intellectually honest discussion or debate. > >Technical detailed nuances oftentimes act to mask real issues at the >level of fundamental rights. Nobody should, accidentally or on >purpose, be allowed to redefine what is really a fundamental rights >issue as a pure issue of high tech or bureaucratic administration. I >don't say that's the intent of any one here, but this is the danger of >nontransparency as to fundamental principles in any given area. > >Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > >On 9/21/09, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: >> Dear Milton and all >>> >>> >>> And again, back to Bertrand, ok, if you and Parminder don't think we >>> should work through ICANN give us viable strategies and scenarios for >>> getting _/liberal/_ and democratic freedoms in to global governance of >>> the Internet some other way. I'm all ears. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> >>> >> Since you ears are opened : >> There are some other ways indeed, simply put ICANN in the place it >> belongs : >> a namespace service providers among other ones... >> ie opening the competition to DNS services. >> >> I Can ( monopoly ) --> We can ( competition ) >> >> For sure, as the phone business, >> ICANN, the "historic" namespace service provider would remain for years >> the main player, but the clock in cybertime is running fast. >> >> What I am all ears is about concrete proposals of multistakeholders >> governance within >> the new DNS/ classes/, learning from the flaws of ICANN. >> The governance models could be diverse and adapted to each/ class/. >> >> Bla bla should be avoided as well as declarations of noble principles >> everybody agrees upon, but that takes all the bandwidth required >> for an effective discussion. >> >> What is needed are effecient mechanisms with a sound legal basis, >> not with a mixed brew of corporate and governement "memos" >> and "agreements". >> I did propose sometimes ago the UNMSP scheme. >> http://unmsp.org >> >> Best >> >> Francis >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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/recherche/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 >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > >-- >Paul R Lehto, J.D. >P.O. Box #1 >Ishpeming, MI 49849 >lehto.paul at gmail.com >906-204-4026 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Sep 21 14:59:33 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:59:33 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Fw: [A2k] Why would EU sacrifice Internet Freedoms? Ask your ministers! Message-ID: <13401053.1253559573185.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, As and FYI. Lets hope that the EU parliment representatives are wise and informed enough to do the right thing. Let us in the United States hopefully not seek to sacrafice well established American freedoms, rights, and duties in a manner that would seed same to a non-elected entity or group as has been considered and from time to time discussed. -----Forwarded Message----- >From: Jérémie ZIMMERMANN - La Quadrature du Net >Sent: Sep 21, 2009 4:46 AM >To: a2k at lists.essential.org >Subject: [A2k] Why would EU sacrifice Internet Freedoms? Ask your ministers! > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >http://www.laquadrature.net/en/why-would-eu-sacrifice-internet-freedoms > > >The conciliation of the EU "Telecoms Package" will begin in a few days. >27 Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the >executive branches of the 27 Member States will negotiate the text in >closed-doors meetings. The outcome of these discussions will shape the >future of Internet users' freedoms in Europe. EU citizens must ask their >representatives to adopt firm positions to protect their citizens' >fundamental rights and defend Net neutrality. > >.../... > >EU citizens can act now by inquiring after their ministers in charge7 on >these two specific questions: > > * Why should the EU accept infringement on Net neutrality voted in >second reading in the Telecoms Package and how do they intend to correct >them? > > * Why should EU renounce to the protection of EU citizens' >fundamental rights voted twice by the European Parliament in "amendment >138"? > > >We wll soon send and publish our letter to our ministers, along with an >english translation. > >Let's keep the pressure high! The recent news in the US are very >encouraging! > > > >j > >- -- >- --- La Quadrature du Net --- http://www.laquadrature.net > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > >iEYEARECAAYFAkq3S1kACgkQ1eTOPM/5+ws94QCgkdiF4+ApJ4L//z/CtiXB62SX >8hcAoJsdiJqc9bgDODUcD3Hz1Cv/g2vj >=Kdk1 >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >_______________________________________________ >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 avri at acm.org Mon Sep 21 15:08:46 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:08:46 -0400 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <036A4270-2D9A-4C64-99D8-7A05EA12BF0D@acm.org> On 21 Sep 2009, at 13:14, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > except for some fields like the CNAME that you mentioned at the > workshop, this is not just any old field but an essential feature, a resource record type that, until and unless it is changed makes the entire project unworkable as the namespaces will leak into each other. Even if you intend your new Class not to use it, the fact that in can be used means that the namespaces can't be isolated from each other - hence putting us back in need of a single global name space. i.e. right back were we are now. > almost everything is in the RFCs not by a long shot. two things that immediately come to mind are a well formed definition of these Classes and a well formed URI scheme for naming your new services/objects so that apps, apps that would need to be modified, can use the new namespace. and things in the RFC that have not yet been implemented and tried may or may not work. and how many DNS implementations would need to be updated? as for http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm The problem here is that was just an assumption, but when people started looking at doing it, they started to find all the reasons why it would be very difficult. my prediction is still that even if you can get the resources and talent to do all the necessary research work and if it is indeed doable, which won't be known until some ways down the road, I still predict a decade is the shortest time before deployment - and possibly 2 decades before it might see wide spread use - if it proves to be feasible at all. I admit this is slightly better then the infinite time prediction I gave you on first hearing the proposal (the last thing I predicted infinite time on was IPv6 and yeah, maybe i was wrong on that. maybe.) as i said, i love seeing people find clever uses for unused protocol features, but one must be realistic about the effort involved in making it work and deployment. i think there is some cleverness in the proposal but the road to deployment is really really difficult and very very long. 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 Mon Sep 21 15:11:24 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:11:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] is icann an institution? Message-ID: <2243857.1253560285074.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 Mon Sep 21 15:16:20 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:16:20 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... Message-ID: <746745.1253560581084.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Avri and all, -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 21, 2009 2:08 PM >To: Governance/IGC List >Cc: "WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance" >Subject: Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... > > >On 21 Sep 2009, at 13:14, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > >> except for some fields like the CNAME that you mentioned at the >> workshop, > >this is not just any old field but an essential feature, a resource >record type that, until and unless it is changed makes the entire >project unworkable as the namespaces will leak into each other. Even >if you intend your new Class not to use it, the fact that in can be >used means that the namespaces can't be isolated from each other - >hence putting us back in need of a single global name space. i.e. >right back were we are now. > >> almost everything is in the RFCs > >not by a long shot. Exactly right IMO. > >two things that immediately come to mind are a well formed definition >of these Classes and a well formed URI scheme for naming your new >services/objects so that apps, apps that would need to be modified, >can use the new namespace. > >and things in the RFC that have not yet been implemented and tried may >or may not work. Many don't initially and as such require and are updated accordingly. > >and how many DNS implementations would need to be updated? > >as for http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm > >The problem here is that was just an assumption, but when people >started looking at doing it, they started to find all the reasons why >it would be very difficult. Wrong. It's not difficult at all. What is difficult is cooperation of the legacy root structure to other and newer existing and future root structures. > >my prediction is still that even if you can get the resources and >talent to do all the necessary research work and if it is indeed >doable, which won't be known until some ways down the road, I still >predict a decade is the shortest time before deployment - and possibly >2 decades before it might see wide spread use - if it proves to be >feasible at all. I admit this is slightly better then the infinite >time prediction I gave you on first hearing the proposal (the last >thing I predicted infinite time on was IPv6 and yeah, maybe i was >wrong on that. maybe.) as i said, i love seeing people find clever >uses for unused protocol features, but one must be realistic about the >effort involved in making it work and deployment. i think there is >some cleverness in the proposal but the road to deployment is really >really difficult and very very long. It's only as difficult if Guilds like ICANN desire to make same difficult. > >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 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 muguet at mdpi.net Mon Sep 21 16:30:59 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:30:59 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <036A4270-2D9A-4C64-99D8-7A05EA12BF0D@acm.org> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> <036A4270-2D9A-4C64-99D8-7A05EA12BF0D@acm.org> Message-ID: <4AB7E283.9050809@mdpi.net> Dear Avri > > On 21 Sep 2009, at 13:14, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > >> except for some fields like the CNAME that you mentioned at the >> workshop, > > this is not just any old field but an essential feature, a resource > record type that, until and unless it is changed makes the entire > project unworkable as the namespaces will leak into each other. You are dramatizing a little bit with visions of floods... ,without indication of class, the default is the class IN. and although the /CNAME/ record can be a convenient shortcut, everything can be done with A records, So for the class IN, for legacy reasons, the CNAME could only be used for aliasing names in the class IN.... no big deal and in the new /classes, / either we modify the syntax for the CNAME ( which is possible, since there no legacy ) or CNAME would be avoided unless aliasing to a domain name in the IN class... so no big deal... and above all, no confusion or, other idea,, may be better, we adopt the rule that aliasing can only be done with the same /class./ > Even if you intend your new Class not to use it, the fact that in can > be used cf infra > means that the namespaces can't be isolated from each other - hence > putting us back in need of a single global name space. i.e. right > back were we are now. > >> almost everything is in the RFCs > > not by a long shot. > > two things that immediately come to mind are a well formed definition > of these Classes and a well formed URI scheme f exactly, I neved hide this fact in my presentation, the class field must become represented in the URI, with an added syntax feature. > or naming your new services/objects so that apps, apps that would need > to be modified, can use the new namespace. yes of course, to use new things, the apps must be updated, nothing wrong with this > > and things in the RFC that have not yet been implemented and tried may > or may not work. > > and how many DNS implementations would need to be updated? all, it is like a software update > > as for http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm > > The problem here is that was just an assumption, but when people who ? > started looking at doing it, they started to find all the reasons why > it would be very difficult. > be more specific > my prediction is still that even if you can get the resources and > talent to do all the necessary research work and if it is indeed > doable, which won't be known until some ways down the road, I still > predict a decade is the shortest time before deployment - and possibly > 2 decades before it might see wide spread use - if it proves to be > feasible at all. I admit this is slightly better then the infinite > time prediction I gave you on first hearing the proposal (the last > thing I predicted infinite time on was IPv6 and yeah, maybe i was > wrong on that. maybe your track record on prediction reassures me ;-) > .) as i said, i love seeing people find clever uses for unused > protocol features, but one must be realistic about the effort involved > in making it work and deployment. i think there is some cleverness in > the proposal but the road to deployment is really really difficult and > very very long. I we agree to disagree on this later point... the deploment is going to depend on the adoption of the DNS software update by the majors ISPs, but since they might not lose OoS on the IN class, I seen no reason why they should not perform the update, unless they resist for political reasons in order to maintain a monopoly... in the long run, this is going to depend on the request of their customers... ( ie why I can't access this site... etc.... ) and if whole communities, spread all over the world request for the /class/ feature .... it could spread like wildfire... be the "In" thing ( intended pun ) Best Francis > > 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 > > . > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 16:31:52 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:31:52 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <746745.1253560581084.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <746745.1253560581084.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4AB7E2B8.3060705@mdpi.net> Dear Jeffrey, dear all > Av >> and things in the RFC that have not yet been implemented and tried may >> or may not work. >> > > Many don't initially and as such require and are updated accordingly. > exactly, the DNS soft need update to fully implement the *RFC 5395 *( old 2929 easier to remenber ) and test if the update works, but this is a not breathtaking effort... there is no conceptual difficulty in programming, a fixed parameter becomes a variable as it should have been in the first place. >> and how many DNS implementations would need to be updated? >> >> as for http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm >> >> The problem here is that was just an assumption, but when people >> started looking at doing it, they started to find all the reasons why >> it would be very difficult. >> > > Wrong. It's not difficult at all. What is difficult is cooperation > of the legacy root structure to other and newer existing and future > root structures. > exactly, the key point would be who is going to be the trusted authority to store the "cache" currently InterNIC http://www.internic.net/zones/named.root for all the /classes/, so that DNS servers software may be updated when there are new /classes/ created and update on root servers of existing /classes/... >> l but the road to deployment is really >> really difficult and very very long. >> > > It's only as difficult if Guilds like ICANN desire to make same difficult. > no comments... Francis >> 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 >> > > 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 > > . > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 17:22:04 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:22:04 -0700 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <4AB7EE7C.8020300@cavebear.com> On 09/21/2009 10:14 AM, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > except for some fields like the CNAME ... I invite you to dig into the following domain name, which has a single CNAME resource record... maps-to-nonascii.rfc-test.net As the name suggests, it uses a CNAME RR to load an indirect name that contains unusual, but 100% Internet-Standard legitimate characters, such as carriage-return, linefeed, and null. That indirect name causes things like gethostbyname() on *nix systems to fail. There are uncharted traps in the DNS world that will be exposed as we start to stretch DNS into parts that are legal but have not been exercised, parts such as using DNS classes other than IN. I am in the business of testing internet code. We test not so much for conformance but for robustness. And we, unfortunately, have learned that much internet code is nowhere close to being worthy of being labeled as "robust" but is instead implemented according to a design practice that says "it worked once on our unstressed lab network, so let's ship it as a finished product". That kind of code is often very brittle; it often breaks when subjected to uses beyond what the norm of today. (And besides inducing failure, user confusion, and ISP support headaches, it opens doors for security penetrations.) It is becoming increasingly clear that DNS is simply not adequate for the name mapping needs for the future. We need name mapping systems that are more agile and have greater temporal stability than DNS, and they need to avoid the trademark entanglements that have strangled rational DNS policies. What I am suggesting is that rather than trying to patch DNS and dealing with the mass of the installed base we should concentrate on better technolgies that perhaps map to an underlying DNS base, perhaps not, but that are themselves more attuned to the developing needs of the net. Of course, these new technologies might need new bodies of governance. They would likely be new bodies, not ICANN, thus giving us a chance to do governance things well from the outset rather than do a retrofit. --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 icggov at johnlevine.com Mon Sep 21 17:49:07 2009 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 21 Sep 2009 21:49:07 -0000 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> Message-ID: <20090921214907.48196.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >first someone has to figure out if new DNS classes are practical or >even fully technically possible as the protocols currently stand. The DNS class feature has been unused since the demise of the Chaosnet protocols in the 1980s. The DNS standards still reserve bits for the class number, but attempts to use any class other than IN won't work because nobody's software has used other classes for over 20 years. ICANN is not my favorite organization but competitive root systems make about as much sense as competitive phone number systems. 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 muguet at mdpi.net Mon Sep 21 18:50:14 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:50:14 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB7EE7C.8020300@cavebear.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> <4AB7EE7C.8020300@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4AB80326.6000804@mdpi.net> Dear Karl > On > There are uncharted traps in the DNS world that will be exposed as we > start to stretch DNS into parts that are legal but have not been > exercised, parts such as using DNS classes other than IN. May be, however an example like yours that breaks the current DNS system is irrelevant to the issue, it would break likely for other /classes/, frankly turning a fixed string into a variable, that is replicating exactly the features of the IN class, should not improve or worsen the situation by much. What, and this I am ready to agree with you, might get into unchartered territories is to use UTF8, in particular whenever cannonalization is concerned. Yet relying on tables instead of bit masking should not be a grand undertaking. In fact, my proposal is rather dumb as far as programing is concerned, and because it is dumb, it might work. > > What I am suggesting is that rather than trying to patch DNS and > dealing with the mass of the installed base we should concentrate on > better technolgies that perhaps map to an underlying DNS base, perhaps > not, but that are themselves more attuned to the developing needs of > the net. So what is your proposal ? My proposal is a realistic approach taking into account the existing DNS system as a constraint, it is not a clean slate approach, it is as much as KISS as possible. > Of course, these new technologies might need new bodies of governance. > They would likely be new bodies, not ICANN, thus giving us a chance to > do governance things well from the outset rather than do a retrofit. Fully agreed. Francis > > --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 > > . > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 21 18:55:02 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:55:02 +0200 Subject: [Gov 734] Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB7E2B8.3060705@mdpi.net> References: <746745.1253560581084.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4AB7E2B8.3060705@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <20090921225545.3D58191078@npogroups.org> Dear Francis, I am not sure I follow everything here. At 22:31 21/09/2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: >Dear Jeffrey, dear all >>>And things in the RFC that have not yet been implemented and tried may >>>or may not work. >>Many don't initially and as such require and are updated accordingly. >exactly, the DNS soft need update to fully implement the >RFC 5395 ( old 2929 easier to remenber ) >and test if the update works, but this is a not breathtaking >effort... there is no conceptual difficulty in programming, > a fixed parameter becomes a variable as it should have been in the >first place. What do you mean by "DNS soft", there are many DNS programs. All of them should support classes. >>>and how many DNS implementations would need to be updated? >>> >>>as for >>>http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm >>> >>>The problem here is that was just an assumption, but when people >>>started looking at doing it, they started to find all the reasons why >>>it would be very difficult. >> >>Wrong. It's not difficult at all. What is difficult is cooperation >>of the legacy root structure to other and newer existing and future >>root structures. >exactly, >the key point would be who is going to be the trusted authority >to store the "cache" currently InterNIC >http://www.internic.net/zones/named.root >for all the classes, so that DNS servers software may be updated >when there are new classes created and update on root >servers of existing classes.. There are several manners to implement classes, and many reasons why. Hoever, classes are tied to domain names as well as domain names to classes. You cannot decide to create a new root file with .com in a new class and not to be sure that the ICANN root will not support that class too. But if you create a new root that uses a new group (TLDs) and you get successful, ICANN cannot stop you to become a real competition. There is nothing special in a root file, except the use people make of it and the trust they have in it. Progressively complexity, e-empowerment, and security issues will make that people will only eventually use their own root. Domain names, classes, groups and presentations are way to sort the same names into different sub-spaces with or without the same ties. So actually the root we currently use is a one dimmension matrix, but actually the root matrix is number of TLD x number of classes and the user space is still to be multiplied by the number of supported presentations. This complexity is practically un-centralisable. Because by essence everyone can decide of the picture he will actually use. The whole system is only based upon the people acceptance of the ICANN, while ICANN does not really care about what people really need. jfc -------------- 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 muguet at mdpi.net Mon Sep 21 19:01:24 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:01:24 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <20090921214907.48196.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20090921214907.48196.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Message-ID: <4AB805C4.7030502@mdpi.net> Dear John >> first someone has to figure out if new DNS classes are practical or >> even fully technically possible as the protocols currently stand. >> > > The DNS class feature has been unused since the demise of the Chaosnet > protocols in the 1980s. The DNS standards still reserve bits for the > class number, but attempts to use any class other than IN won't work > because nobody's software has used other classes for over 20 years. > This, I am fully aware of this from the very onset..!!!!. I am saying this in all my presentations. Only the dig tool currently implements a query wiht the class field to a limited extent that works on current DNS servers. My point is reactivating this "forgotten parameter" could be done, with little conceptual difficulties and a sofware programming effort that is very small in comparison to the huge benefits in all terms : economics, governance, scientific, it opens a new dimension. > ICANN is not my favorite organization but competitive root systems make namespace /class/ service providers make > about as much sense as competitive phone number systems. > as much sense as competitive phome companies.... Best Francis > 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 > > . > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 21 23:59:07 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:59:07 -0400 Subject: [Gov 738] Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB805C4.7030502@mdpi.net> References: <20090921214907.48196.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4AB805C4.7030502@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <08496D07-9E80-428E-B081-961A70114F18@acm.org> On 21 Sep 2009, at 19:01, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > My point is reactivating this "forgotten parameter" could be done, > with little conceptual difficulties and a sofware programming effort > that is very small in comparison to the huge benefits in all terms : > economics, governance, scientific, It is all well and good that you persist in your belief of the ease with which you can do this. You may have access to a genius solution i just do not see, for i do not see the easy path you see. i see an interesting research problem with lots of open issues and gotchas ahead, but i could be wrong. i look forward to seeing the Internet-drafts/proposals in which you produce well formed definitions of your classes and define the schema for your new URIs. i expect they will be very thorough and will cover all of the possible case and issues so that they can be subject to serious technical review. And after that I will look forward to the running code and network experiments that prove your point and enable your triumphant 'i told you so'. Then it will make sense to work on the business case and governance models for the implementation. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 01:28:27 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:28:27 +0300 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB805C4.7030502@mdpi.net> References: <20090921214907.48196.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4AB805C4.7030502@mdpi.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > Dear John > > first someone has to figure out if new DNS classes are practical or > even fully technically possible as the protocols currently stand. > > > The DNS class feature has been unused since the demise of the Chaosnet > protocols in the 1980s. not UNUSED, but only used at the moment for one specific purpose AFAIK: ; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> @demon.mtn.co.ug version.bind chaos txt ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 252 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;version.bind. CH TXT ;; ANSWER SECTION: version.bind. 0 CH TXT "9.3.3rc2" ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: version.bind. 0 CH NS version.bind. ;; Query time: 937 msec ;; SERVER: 212.88.97.20#53(212.88.97.20) ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 22 07:59:25 2009 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 65 The DNS standards still reserve bits for the > class number, but attempts to use any class other than IN won't work > because nobody's software has used other classes for over 20 years. > except BIND, and maybe some folks at MIT still use HESIOD class. They were the only ones to ever use it AFAIK. > > This, I am fully aware of this from the very onset..!!!!. > I am saying this in all my presentations. > Only the dig tool currently implements a query wiht the class field to a > limited > extent that works on current DNS servers. > > My point is reactivating this "forgotten parameter"  could be done, > with little conceptual difficulties and a sofware programming effort > that is very small in comparison to the  huge  benefits in all terms : > economics, governance, scientific, > it opens a new dimension. > it opens a can of worms in terms of DNS load. Avri is correct, it needs much research and IETF work. Yesterdays report RSSAC tells us that we must go slow on adding to the root complexity and size, as implementing v6, DNSSEC, iDNs and new TLDs have a multiplicative effect on the rootzone and DNS traffic. the IETF builds the protocols and the IANA assigns the protocols, including DNS classes. http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters, so I'm not getting where you think the "outside of ICANN" competition comes in to play. In any case, why are you going to the ITU for funding/audience? If you want to change a DNS standard, the IETF is the place to work. There is a DNSextensions WG. It seems that some want to keep alive the ITU vs. ICANN struggle that Meryem asked about the other day. -- 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Sep 22 07:47:25 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:47:25 -0300 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <4AB7EE7C.8020300@cavebear.com> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBC7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <8FD91005-7BEE-4DBC-AEF5-2A7DD201CBDB@psg.com> <4AB34014.9000508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC9E74@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4A60D8BD-4A98-4713-9015-52B0560FC8D7@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FBEA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> <4AB7EE7C.8020300@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4AB8B94D.8000000@cafonso.ca> This is a fascinating discussion, and of course, even for the initiated (perhaps with the exception of the very few who are capable to keep in clear memory a big list of interrelated RFCs), difficult to follow in all its implications. For me, as Thomas Kuhn has taught us, this is the sorely needed process which leads to the breaking of existing paradigms (the horror of established scientific tribes) and the creation of new ones. Karl's msg below is a good summary of this, and I welcome very much Francis's initiative to create this debate track not only in our list but in broader consitutencies as well. I count on our colleagues who do dominate the intricate relationships in the ocean of RFCs to participate very constructively in this debate. frt rgds --c.a. Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 09/21/2009 10:14 AM, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > >> except for some fields like the CNAME ... > > I invite you to dig into the following domain name, which has a single > CNAME resource record... maps-to-nonascii.rfc-test.net > > As the name suggests, it uses a CNAME RR to load an indirect name that > contains unusual, but 100% Internet-Standard legitimate characters, such > as carriage-return, linefeed, and null. That indirect name causes > things like gethostbyname() on *nix systems to fail. > > There are uncharted traps in the DNS world that will be exposed as we > start to stretch DNS into parts that are legal but have not been > exercised, parts such as using DNS classes other than IN. > > I am in the business of testing internet code. We test not so much for > conformance but for robustness. And we, unfortunately, have learned > that much internet code is nowhere close to being worthy of being > labeled as "robust" but is instead implemented according to a design > practice that says "it worked once on our unstressed lab network, so > let's ship it as a finished product". That kind of code is often very > brittle; it often breaks when subjected to uses beyond what the norm of > today. (And besides inducing failure, user confusion, and ISP support > headaches, it opens doors for security penetrations.) > > It is becoming increasingly clear that DNS is simply not adequate for > the name mapping needs for the future. We need name mapping systems > that are more agile and have greater temporal stability than DNS, and > they need to avoid the trademark entanglements that have strangled > rational DNS policies. > > What I am suggesting is that rather than trying to patch DNS and dealing > with the mass of the installed base we should concentrate on better > technolgies that perhaps map to an underlying DNS base, perhaps not, but > that are themselves more attuned to the developing needs of the net. > > Of course, these new technologies might need new bodies of governance. > They would likely be new bodies, not ICANN, thus giving us a chance to > do governance things well from the outset rather than do a retrofit. > > --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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 10:59:10 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:59:10 -0400 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution? In-Reply-To: <4AB7B660.4010208@mdpi.net> References: <4AB24AB3.6040907@isoc.be> <3A2EC67F-DFD7-44D0-B8D7-8D2634339A00@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <76f819dd0909210850s2020e581r5300e476b34e0a5d@mail.gmail.com> <4AB7B660.4010208@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909220759k6b93d4cif2baa5ae4b5c5905@mail.gmail.com> On 9/21/09, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > Dear Paul >> For the reasons in the above paragraph, I can't agree at all with >> Francis Muguet's comment below suggesting that "noble principles" >> discussions waste bandwidth. >> > You did not read me correctly, sorry , I wrote > > /Declarations of noble principles *everybody agrees upon*/ > [snip] > What is needed is not to discuss issues that are well agreed upon > again and again, but to go towards the difficult topics Dear Francis, My post, however, still applies to you (as it does to all) because even principles that are AGREED UPON by a relevant community of people, most especially the agreed-upon important or fundamental principles, are the very ones that must be called upon and applied frequently -- and there can be some room for debate about how even a universally agreed upon principle specifically applies on the ground, its scope of effect, and so forth. Thus the principles are always applicable within their scope. What you specifically said was: "Bla bla should be avoided as well as declarations of noble principles everybody agrees upon, but that takes all the bandwidth required for an effective discussion." The paragraph above seems to me to clearly suggest that both bla bla and noble principles everybody agrees upon (or doesn't express their disagreement with publicly) should not be using up bandwidth when we, as you clarify in your reply, move on to the more difficult salient issues. If that's the case, then I would say that you misapprehend the role of noble principles everyone agrees on. That role can be described as follows: Universally agreed principles, like all principles, act like guidestars do for seafaring mariners (such as the North Star). Those of us traversing the seas of new or difficult issues will surely lost in due time if we do not keep the guidestars (principles) in mind or sight at all times. So, yes, of course, we should reach the difficult issues. But if your posts Francis can be read in any sense (please feel free to clarify) to suggest that we "move on" from the standpoint of rights and principles and sink down to (relative) minutiae without those agreed upon rights and principles there to continue to act as guides whenever they apply, then your specific procedure for getting to the hard issues is defective in a major way, to the extent it excludes further use of bandwidth on "agreed upon" principles. It would be, for example, malpractice for any good lawyer to fail to consider constitutional issues in many cases. Constitutions are one type of "noble principle" that everybody SEEMS to agree upon, but in actual action and point of fact, are often ignored as inconvenient, or even opposed. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor PS The only way the noble principles might legitimately not enter into discussions would be their complete inapplicability. But inapplicability is not created by the conversion, for example, of free speech issues into technical computer or internet lingo. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 23 06:34:59 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:34:59 +0200 Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: References: <20090921214907.48196.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4AB805C4.7030502@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <20090923103854.5905C921F3@npogroups.org> Dear Mc, At 07:28 22/09/2009, McTim wrote: >it opens a can of worms in terms of DNS load. Avri is correct, it >needs much research and IETF work. Yes. Today, I think the only IETF related class and presentation research effort is carried on the iucg at ietf.org mailing list. The IUCG is an internet lead user (@large) effort that strives to help people _using_ the internet better, while more generaly the IETF mission is to make the internet _work_ better. This research is carried for years (along ICP-3 suggestions). It is at a cross road because IUCG said that we will make our interplus answer 100% compatible with existing IETF propositions. The most important IETF move in that area is IDNA. The recommendation of IETF was, I think, reasonably documented in a mail Vint Cerf sent to me, to push in that direction in a reasonable way. The problems are that this IUCG @large effort is opposed by the ALAC, also that classes and presentations are very similar to the security issue: they are architecturally permitted to create chaos yet nothing protects from them except ignoring them. So, addressing them demands either a clean sheet new internet internal architecture and governance, or a better understanding of the network model and intergovernance, the addition of new layers, and a ambiant mechanism to protect ourselves from real chaos. On the IETF side, this is what the WG/IDNABIS is about. IDNs would have been addressed by the IGF (not ICANN as too limited, or ITU as a patch) in minutes should the Internet presentation layer and classes being more actively understood and protected. On the IUCG side, this is what the Internet PLUS (plugged layers user system) is also about. At this time the two systems (IDNA and IDNAPLUS) are not technically very far apart (only a few words). Yet they still seem conceptually separated because the engineers of the IETF, who want to support every user script still do not want to support them the way the people use them. Because the IETF English is for 25 years case insensitive, the world should stop using case sensitive scripts. Happily this is not technically difficult to address and everything has been well prepared by the WG/IDNABIS document set after WG/LC review (the IUCG IDNA working site is http://wikidna.org). >Yesterdays report RSSAC tells us >that we must go slow on adding to the root complexity and size, as >implementing v6, DNSSEC, iDNs and new TLDs have a multiplicative >effect on the rootzone and DNS traffic. Do not forget Web.2.0. The real issue is that the Internet is still supported by a real root and a pseudo single root server system. The emerging reality is a virtual root and a distributed heterarchic server support. ICANN has called for years for this to be community explored and tested (ICP-3). IETF has declined the invitation. We did it for two years and build from this experimentation. >the IETF builds the protocols and the IANA assigns the protocols, >including DNS classes. http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters, >so I'm not getting where you think the "outside of ICANN" competition >comes in to play. The outside of ICANN world is the users' world. Us. None of us is bound to ICANN except by the feeling of uninformed people that ICANN has something to do with the fact that the Internet works. The real service of ICANN is to hide where the real problem is. The problem is that we (users) will blow ICANN out if we want to reasonably protect our own netship system. Because the solution is not DNSSEC, the solution is for us to run our own fool proof, secure, and fast DNS solution including our own root, based upon our selected TLD set, on non recursive servers. >In any case, why are you going to the ITU for funding/audience? If >you want to change a DNS standard, the IETF is the place to work. >There is a DNSextensions WG. This is not the proper WG. The job is an IAB job if carried through network architecture and engineering. It is an IRTF job to prepare the IAB guidance. It aslo is a userside job with immediate user protection as a target. Francis went to the ITU because they are the single most concerned body. I created the IUCG with the help of several IETF leaders, once they identified that I would have to go with the ITU if they continued to ignore lead users, as the ICANN still does. One cannot rebuild the entire Internet governance alone, but I am afraid that since ICANN also blocks the enhanced cooperation mechanism, I will still need to re-act ATLARGE (http://atlarge.org) to get the IUCG the end user backing that it needs for inputs and testing. >It seems that some want to keep alive the ITU vs. ICANN struggle that >Meryem asked about the other day. This is not so much an ITU vs. ICANN struggle, but an ICANN dominance attempt where it should be our common secretariat. The first lesson I draught from IUCG is that no one will really understand the way the Internet works as long as we talk of "users". The world is distributed and made of "masters" of which the system is technically an internet "client". This is what the WSIS' demand about a people's centric vision means. Server centric and network centric schemes do not fullt fit. Providers are to be server centric and ISP are to be network centric. We are master centric. This is something we know from Einstein. This is also the kind of tussle that Dave Clark (founder of IETF and GENI) recently discussed as a new key reality of the Internet architecture. Best. 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 Wed Sep 23 11:40:09 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <20090923103903.10C299223C@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <832048.50858.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think all would agree that governance regarding the Internet really requires a two prong result. First would be technical "RFC" protocals that should be established as standards recognized and generally accepted. The second should be the governance of peoples and rights.  What we have seen go so terribly wrong in ICANN is a failure to recognize ability and to comprhensively recognize and develop human resources in the two distinct fields of expertise. I do not hire an engineer to arrange, cater and host my cocktail parties or care for and administer aid to ailing children.  I do not hire professors of law and sociologists to be mechanics on my 2010 mercedes.(it has 1,000xs more computing power than my 2001 pc)   We do not elect scientists. We should not appoint Chairman. We do not reach consensus on positive and negative currents. We should not just accept copyrights. Until we are free to distinguish between the two and commonly seperate the functions we can not recognize the qualities of both and resolve issues as to integration. --- On Wed, 9/23/09, jefsey wrote: From: jefsey Subject: Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Dr. Francis MUGUET" Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 10:34 AM Dear Mc, At 07:28 22/09/2009, McTim wrote: > it opens a can of worms in terms of DNS load.  Avri is correct, it > needs much research and IETF work. Yes. Today, I think the only IETF related class and presentation research effort is carried on the iucg at ietf.org mailing list. The IUCG is an internet lead user (@large) effort that strives to help people _using_ the internet better, while more generaly the IETF mission is to make the internet _work_ better. This research is carried for years (along ICP-3 suggestions). It is at a  cross road because IUCG said that we will make our interplus answer 100% compatible with existing IETF propositions. The most important IETF move in that area is IDNA. The recommendation of IETF was, I think, reasonably documented in a mail Vint Cerf sent to me, to push in that direction in a reasonable way. The problems are that this IUCG @large effort is opposed by the ALAC, also that classes and presentations are very similar to the security issue: they are architecturally permitted to create chaos yet nothing protects from them except ignoring them. So, addressing them demands either a clean sheet new internet internal architecture and governance, or a better understanding of the network model and intergovernance, the addition of new layers, and a ambiant mechanism to protect ourselves from real chaos. On the IETF side, this is what the WG/IDNABIS is about. IDNs would have been addressed by the IGF (not ICANN as too limited, or ITU as a patch) in minutes should the Internet presentation layer and classes being more actively understood and protected. On the IUCG side, this is what the Internet PLUS (plugged layers user system) is also about. At this time the two systems (IDNA and IDNAPLUS) are not technically very far apart (only a few words). Yet they still seem conceptually separated because the engineers of the IETF, who want to support every user script still do not want to support them the way the people use them. Because the IETF English is for 25 years case insensitive, the world should stop using case sensitive scripts. Happily this is not technically difficult to address and everything has been well prepared by the WG/IDNABIS document set after WG/LC review (the IUCG IDNA working site is http://wikidna.org). > Yesterdays report RSSAC tells us > that we must go slow on adding to the root complexity and size, as > implementing v6, DNSSEC, iDNs and new TLDs have a multiplicative > effect on the rootzone and DNS traffic. Do not forget Web.2.0. The real issue is that the Internet is still supported by a real root and a pseudo single root server system. The emerging reality is a virtual root and a distributed heterarchic server support. ICANN has called for years for this to be community explored and tested (ICP-3). IETF has declined the invitation. We did it for two years and build from this experimentation. > the IETF builds the protocols and the IANA assigns the protocols, > including DNS classes. http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters, > so I'm not getting where you think the "outside of ICANN" competition > comes in to play. The outside of ICANN world is the users' world. Us. None of us is bound to ICANN except by the feeling of uninformed people that ICANN has something to do with the fact that the Internet works. The real service of ICANN is to hide where the real problem is. The problem is that we (users) will blow ICANN out if we want to reasonably protect our own netship system. Because the solution is not DNSSEC, the solution is for us to run our own fool proof, secure, and fast DNS solution including our own root, based upon our selected TLD set, on non recursive servers. > In any case, why are you going to the ITU for funding/audience?  If > you want to change a DNS standard, the IETF is the place to work. > There is a DNSextensions WG. This is not the proper WG. The job is an IAB job if carried through network architecture and engineering. It is an IRTF job to prepare the IAB guidance. It aslo is a userside job with immediate user protection as a target. Francis went to the ITU because they are the single most concerned body. I created the IUCG with the help of several IETF leaders, once they identified that I would have to go with the ITU if they continued to ignore lead users, as the ICANN still does. One cannot rebuild the entire Internet governance alone, but I am afraid that since ICANN also blocks the enhanced cooperation mechanism, I will still need to re-act ATLARGE (http://atlarge.org) to get the IUCG the end user backing that it needs for inputs and testing. > It seems that some want to keep alive the ITU vs. ICANN struggle that > Meryem asked about the other day. This is not so much an ITU vs. ICANN struggle, but an ICANN dominance attempt where it should be our common secretariat. The first lesson I draught from IUCG is that no one will really understand the way the Internet works as long as we talk of "users". The world is distributed and made of "masters" of which the system is technically an internet "client". This is what the WSIS' demand about a people's centric vision means. Server centric and network centric schemes do not fullt fit. Providers are to be server centric and ISP are to be network centric. We are master centric. This is something we know from Einstein. This is also the kind of tussle that Dave Clark (founder of IETF and GENI) recently discussed as a new key reality of the Internet architecture. Best. 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 -------------- 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 Sep 23 12:02:49 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gov 738] Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... In-Reply-To: <08496D07-9E80-428E-B081-961A70114F18@acm.org> Message-ID: <667017.50359.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Avri,   Here is the beauty of governance. Slicing and dicing through the paradigms that fuse competition and cooperation to reach the unthinkably wonderful results.  For a scientist rehashing and beating the dead horse of what works is dull drums.  They must continually be looking for that which does not work, ask why and beat the conclusion. We in the social "sciences"* must constantly be rehashing that which works and are accepted norms to apply them to areas that do not work. One retracts into models that function and the other constantly expands into areas to explore what if.    When humankind is at their best they are a synergy of the two. A ready acceptance of the other's concepts and willing to reevaluate what they held dear and personal.  My example is best seen in the physician and the lawyer that are truly artists in their application of hard rules to find solutions to human problems. It is found in zealous representation of the individual and in the unflappable treatment of the patient and not the disease.   Governance without the cooperation of the differing sciences and arts and philosophy is WAR. It may be, and we hope it is, a war of words, a constant competition of values and More's and even principles and principals. This happens every nano-second even within the governance of each person. But without cooperation and resolve and sympathy and empathy it results in competitive economic wars and the worst, a war of death of life. In a schizophrenia.   Governance is best achieved when it nurtures the capacity to achieve undreamed of results and reaches down to those climbing and struggling and invites them into the fold.       --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [Gov 738] Re: Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ... To: "WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 3:59 AM On 21 Sep 2009, at 19:01, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > My point is reactivating this "forgotten parameter"  could be done, > with little conceptual difficulties and a sofware programming effort > that is very small in comparison to the  huge  benefits in all terms : > economics, governance, scientific, It is all well and good that you persist in your belief  of the ease with which you can do this.  You may have access to a genius solution i just do not see, for i do not see the easy path you see.  i see an interesting research problem with lots of open issues and gotchas ahead, but i could be wrong. i look forward to seeing the Internet-drafts/proposals in which you produce well formed definitions of your classes and define the schema for your new URIs.  i expect they will be very thorough and will cover all of the possible case and issues so that they can be subject to serious technical review. And after that I will look forward to the running code and network experiments that prove your point and enable your triumphant 'i told you so'. Then it will make sense to work on the business case and governance models for the implementation. 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 23 12:57:34 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] DC Hearings -- from over at the GA Message-ID: <523570.3527.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Just a reminder that the hearing in DC on new TLDs starts in less than an hour (at 10 am Eastern time). One can watch the webcast live via the September 23rd link at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html and read the prepared statements at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090923.html As an experiment, I've created a little free chatroom via TinyChat.com if some others in the ICANN community might want to text chat during the hearing. See: http://tinychat.com/newtlds -------------- 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 Wed Sep 23 17:38:07 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:38:07 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] TACD Blog on EU-U.S. IPR Enforcement Working Group - Meeting with Private Sector Message-ID: <9830189.1253741887517.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, As a matter of significant condern as to Internet Governance: EU-U.S. IPR Enforcement Working Group - Meeting with Private Sector. on TACD Blog: http://www.tacd-ip.org/blog/2009/09/23/meeting-of-the-u-s-eu-ipr-enforcement-working-group/ Meeting of the U.S.-EU IPR Enforcement Working Group A meeting organized by the EU-U.S governments on IPR Enforcement took place today September 23, 2009 in Washington,DC. TACD (as well as TABD) was invited to the ” IPR Enforcement Working Group – Meeting with Private Sector.” Below are a few highlights from the meeting on IPR enforcement, comprehensive notes of the meeting will follow shortly. The well-attended meeting (about 80 people) included many industry and government representatives (from all over the world), and four non-profit representatives. Susan Wilson (US Dept. of Commerce) and Luc Devigne (EU Commission) were the co-chairs of the meeting (Stan McCoy and Jennifer Groves (USTR) were also presenting). They all reported on various IPR enforcement related activities and answered questions. Susan Wilson in her introduction stated the IPR Enforcement Working Group’s objectives: - To promote enforcement - To fight piracy and counterfeits - To promote public & private partnerships on piracy and counterfeits A copy of the meeting agenda is here. a) Government Report on Multilateral fora - OECD: currently working on phase III of enforcement study. US government mentioned it is unlikely they will be adding any additional funding to this. - As for WHO, Resolution WHA 61.21 and IMPACT initiative were mentioned and USTR representatives said that counterfeit medicine will be an issue addressed at the next meeting of the WHA. - The discussion of ACTA (an item on the agenda) focused more on practical details such as the dates and location of previous meetings and upcoming meetings, availability of reports of previous meetings and an announcement that for all forthcoming meetings (including the next meeting in November), a draft agenda would be made available one to two weeks before the meeting. When I mentioned the TACD resolution on Enforcement, and asked why the negotiating text had not yet been made public, Luc Devigne of the European Commission said that they are releasing as much information as possible, as text on each of the topics was completed. Kira Alvarez of the State Department mentioned two public consultations on ACTA. She also pointed to existing FTAs as a model and said that the U.S.’s contributions would be modeled after those. Both EU and U.S. negotiators acknowledged that their aim is to have ACTA finalized by next year. b) Engagement of the labor movement - The U.S. and EU both expressed a desire to engage labor movements in delivering a “positive and constructive message” about IPR protection and enforcement. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and IIPA (International Intellectual Property Association) were both very enthusiastic about this proposal. Judit Rius of KEI pointed out that any effort to engage labor in IP discussions must present a balanced picture of IP issues, including how poorly-directed enforcement can hurt businesses; she pointed to Google’s public submission on ACTA, and Microsoft’s seeking of a compulsory license to sell its Word products in a recent (and still pending) lawsuit. She also highlighted that some of the EU’s demands on ACTA about injunctions and damages could hurt innovation and U.S and EU jobs. Susan Wilson of the Department of Commerce said the U.S. is considering a public event on the topic and they welcome all views on how to do this better. c) On Co-operation with third countries on IPR enforcement - EU and U.S. governments highlighted the following countries and regions: Brazil, China, India, Russia, Canada and ASEAN. - On Canada: US/EU governments & industry in the room: All share concerns on Canada IPR enforcement. The Electronic Software Association suggested using ACTA as a means of “raising the bar” in Canada to force Canadian government to respect TPMs and uphold its IPR commitments. U.S. representatives responded by stating that they expect all parties involved in ACTA to uphold the provisions put forth in ACTA, and will not accommodate the “lowest common denominator.” - The EU and U.S. have been working extensively with China on IP issues, including its new patent law, which was an issue of great concern among the business interests present. - The EU has not been working with India directly on IP programs, characterizing FTA negotiations as “difficult.” Industry representatives asked the U.S. and EU governments to push India to implement digital obligations. - The U.S. and EU have been working extensively in Russia, training judges and law enforcement in IP issues. Rashmi Ragnath of Public Knowledge asked that civil society be consulted when developing these training programs, as they run the risk of training judges with a stringent, uniquely U.S./EU perspective on the law, but without the balances included in U.S./EU law. Devigne was dismissive of this concern: “We train them in Russian law.” - The RIAA raised Mexico as a point of concern. The U.S. responded that they had an ongoing dialogue with Mexico. - General Electric representative Thaddeus Burns expressed concern about emerging markets “eager to gain access to our technology” by “weakening IP measures.” - In general, industry representatives expressed satisfaction with the workshops on IPR enforcement that US/EU governments are organizing on China and Russia. E) Government report on CUSTOMS - In response to a question raised by Malini Aisola of KEI on the effects of ACTA & custom IPR enforcement on legitimate trade of medicines (such as the recent seizure of generics in Europe) Devigne (of the EC) dismissed the outcry over the European Custom authority seizures of legitimate, generic medicines in transit to developing countries as “much ado about nothing.” He said that, when compared to the volume of trade, the occurrence of such incidents is minuscule. He also said that customs regulations gave an overall benefit, they save lives by stopping counterfeits and that it was not EU policy to detain legitimate generic medicines. The EU is engaged in talks with two countries affected by the seizures (India and Brazil). Further, some pharmaceutical industries have pledged on their websites not to request customs officials’ interventions in cases where patents are valid. - The World Customs Organization recently formed a Counterfeiting And Piracy (CAP) group, which will meet at the end of October. According to a U.S. Customs representative, many member nations did not want businesses to play a major role in the group; the U.S. and EU, however, pushed hard for business inclusion. F) FUTURE WORK - The discussion on future work mostly focus on climate change. General Electric and Microsoft were particularly outspoken in highlighting their fear that some current negotiations over green technology and IPR would weaken IPR. They also denounced the inclusion of proposals that limit patentability subject matter and recommend compulsory licenses or licenses of rights. General Electric highlighted that discussions on climate change and IPR should be differentiated from those concerning pharmaceutics and IPR. The EU representative agreed with industry and even mentioned that there is no need for a measure resembling “a Doha Declaration on public health” for climate change & IPR. Some industry representatives mentioned that the discussions on climate change are sometimes more about industrial policy by emerging developing countries. The meeting concluded with the U.S. government asking for proposals of topics to be included in the next October meeting. Proposals should be sent by the end of next week (by October 2) to Susan Wilson at Commerce & Jennifer Groves at USTR. 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Sep 24 05:29:01 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality : an operators' view Message-ID: <21426677.412908.1253784541487.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f06> Dear all Please find attached the view of major European operators on network neutrality. I think there are some justified arguments we should keep in mind when we are discussing this item from the "the user side" and from IG viexpoint. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Network Neutrality_viewed from the operator's side_09_09.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23040 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 Thu Sep 24 12:53:54 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Individual battle for rights Message-ID: <313816.23625.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It is not always pleasantries and handshakes and funding.  It is not always given freely.  Individual rights in governance are perhaps devine, but they are often only acquired through vicious battles of will.    Those of us who do not merely pontificate (as I appear to do here) but fight the battles are ill funded and despised. We are shunned socially and treated like pariahs and ill gotten illegitimate step children.  We upset the applecart.   There is a reason individual rights are mandated by socially conscious regimes. It is because without that mandate we have nothing for it will not be provided at the expense of disturbing the status quo.   Please see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/  I am very afraid for users of the Internet. -------------- 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 Thu Sep 24 13:35:49 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:35:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Post JPA References: <9830189.1253741887517.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Does somebody has an idea wha the status of this "Affirmation of Commitments" paper is? "The Economst" is quoting it in its recent edtion? Is this the new post JPA agreement? What are the details? And who will sign it? http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 13:43:32 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:43:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] Post JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <9830189.1253741887517.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: 2009/9/24 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Does somebody has an idea wha the status of this "Affirmation of > Commitments" paper is? I have just asked on AfrICANN, after AR Inne posted the same link. Looks like we have to wait until next week for publication. >And who will sign it? Will it even need "signing"? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- 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 Thu Sep 24 14:37:11 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:37:11 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Post JPA References: <9830189.1253741887517.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871955A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> A document with the name "Affirmation of Responsibilties" http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/responsibilities-affirmation-28sep06.htm was adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on September 25, 2006. It is identical with the Annex A to the JPA which was signed September 28, 2006. Is the new "Affirmation of Commitments" (quoted by "The Economist") http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430 the Post JPA Arrangment? An alone standing "enhanced Annex A"? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Gesendet: Do 24.09.2009 19:43 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: Re: [governance] Post JPA 2009/9/24 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Does somebody has an idea wha the status of this "Affirmation of Commitments" paper is? I have just asked on AfrICANN, after AR Inne posted the same link. Looks like we have to wait until next week for publication. >And who will sign it? Will it even need "signing"? -- 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 24 14:49:35 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:49:35 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] Post JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871955A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <9830189.1253741887517.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871955A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Other governments (and less likely, other stakeholders?) will be asked to sign on to, and oversee some statement of responsibilities of this kind. With the US govt the primary signature? Best to wait and see. Adam >A document with the name "Affirmation of Responsibilties" > >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/responsibilities-affirmation-28sep06.htm > >was adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on >September 25, 2006. It is identical with the >Annex A to the JPA which was signed September >28, 2006. > >Is the new "Affirmation of Commitments" (quoted >by "The Economist") >http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430 > >the Post JPA Arrangment? An alone standing "enhanced Annex A"? > >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Von: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >Gesendet: Do 24.09.2009 19:43 >An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >Betreff: Re: [governance] Post JPA > > > > >2009/9/24 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > > Does somebody has an idea wha the status >of this "Affirmation of Commitments" paper is? > > >I have just asked on AfrICANN, after AR Inne >posted the same link. Looks like we have to >wait until next week for publication. > >>And who will sign it? > > >Will it even need "signing"? > >-- > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Sep 24 15:17:46 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:17:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Individual battle for rights In-Reply-To: <313816.23625.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <313816.23625.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909241217t1b6ae3day9af0df3d5c3ad91f@mail.gmail.com> Good points here. Though I would correct it by saying that socially conscious regimes RECOGNIZE rights, not "mandate" them. The word "mandate" makes it sound like the regime somehow invented freedom or equality or whatever iteration of rights is involved, when government by its very nature uses compulsion or is anti-freedom, and government is rarely clean on the issues of equality. Government is in the worst possible position to be determining rights, since all such rights inherently tie the government's own hands. Even governments "want" to be free, just as both the wolf and the sheep differ in their conceptions of freedom but both want full freedom, but "freedom" for governments is the picture of tyranny of the most odious kind, since the rule of law dictates that the government's abuse of powers are presumptively valid, in effect acting to outlaw self-defense against governmental tyranny in favor of blind obedience. Governments by definition only intervene to alter or structure the status quo, thus reducing freedom in some important sense (such interventions range from totally just in the case of the "wolf" to totally unjust in the case of the "sheep", depending on the specific circumstances). Thus, governments guarantee, but do not *grant* rights. If rights are not recognized by governments, they are being violated even if they've never been on the books. The rights are not NON-existent. If they were nonexistent then one would have to believe absurdities like slavemasters had the right to hold slaves in the USA until the Civil War Amendments, as opposed to believing that slavery is and was always wrong. Consistent with this approach, amendments to the US constitution expanding the right to vote for freed slaves and women say only that there will be NO DISCRIMINATION in the right to vote, but never "grant" a right to vote. That's because the right always existed, even though found nowhere in the US Constitution. Rights come from reasoning about justice, pure and simple. There's no better fount for them to come from. Although a few may expose themselves by attacking a perceived weakness in the idea of rights coming from people, any competing theory of where rights come from that would have to say they come from the government is even more absurd or weak, if indeed there's any weakness in the idea of rights coming from we the people or Nature or Justice (however one thinks of it). After all, the governments' only legitimate source of power is We the People, so it has all the defects, if any, of the people, PLUS more defects because government is concentrated power. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried. Put more positively, democracy (including "republics" in modern parlance) is the only form of government that asks the all-important question, and asks it regularly both in elections and public opinion as well as the scope of rights: Are the powers that be the powers that OUGHT to be? The "security" of anyone's individual rights is inextricably tied up with the security of the rights of all others. In this light, there's no "individual" rights in the radical sense, instead, it is mutual respect for the rights of all others as the quid pro quo for the respect of my own rights. This is basically the Golden Rule, applied to equality. It's a community-based reciprocity of individual rights, taking on aspects both individual and community at the same time. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 9/24/09, Eric Dierker wrote: > It is not always pleasantries and handshakes and funding. It is not always > given freely. Individual rights in governance are perhaps devine, but they > are often only acquired through vicious battles of will. > > Those of us who do not merely pontificate (as I appear to do here) but fight > the battles are ill funded and despised. We are shunned socially and treated > like pariahs and ill gotten illegitimate step children. We upset the > applecart. > > There is a reason individual rights are mandated by socially conscious > regimes. It is because without that mandate we have nothing for it will not > be provided at the expense of disturbing the status quo. > > Please see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/ I am > very afraid for users of the Internet. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Sep 24 17:11:00 2009 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:11:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Post JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871955A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <9830189.1253741887517.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871955A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: The Economist article speaks of 'four pages' in the document. Also, apparently that document sets up four oversight panels. Those items are not in the 2006 link below. David On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > A document with the name "Affirmation of Responsibilties" > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/responsibilities-affirmation-28sep06.htm > > was adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on September 25, 2006. > It is identical with the Annex A to the JPA which was signed > September 28, 2006. > > Is the new "Affirmation of Commitments" (quoted by "The Economist") http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430 > > > the Post JPA Arrangment? An alone standing "enhanced Annex A"? > > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Sep 25 16:21:34 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:21:34 +1000 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: As co coordinators we have pleasure in declaring the proposed charter amendment adopted. A total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour of the amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number of positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of members of IGC for amending the charter, we have no hesitation in declaring the motion carried. A full report on the decision is attached. It contains a description of the process followed and some recommendations and suggestions to clarify various matters which emerged during the process. The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his assistance and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. Also to those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone who voted and helped to make this worthwhile change possible. Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: igc charter amendment.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61952 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Sep 26 07:29:26 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <237353.63593.qm@web110103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Ian, The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good enough to tell us (1) the total number of IGC members (2) how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the negative on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election. One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met. --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter wrote: > From: Ian Peter > Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" > Cc: "Ginger Paque" > Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM > > > Results of charter amendment vote > > > As co coordinators we have pleasure > in declaring the  proposed charter amendment adopted. A > total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour of the > amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number of > positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of members of > IGC for amending the charter, we have no hesitation in > declaring the motion carried. > > > > A full report on the decision is attached. It contains a > description of the process followed and some recommendations > and suggestions to clarify various matters which emerged > during the process. > > > > The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. > > > > Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his assistance > and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. Also to > those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone who voted > and helped to make this worthwhile change possible. > > > > Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators > > > > > > > -----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 From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Sep 26 08:36:47 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:36:47 +0700 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <237353.63593.qm@web110103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <237353.63593.qm@web110103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4ABE0ADF.1050303@gmx.net> Danny Younger wrote: > Ian, > > The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. > > To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good enough to tell us > (1) the total number of IGC members > (2) how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the negative on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election. > > One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met. > Surprise - I do not know what kind of election system is being used, but I hope it is a system where some basic confidentiality is maintained - I thought I was casting a secret ballot, no? Or was somebody checking the ballots as they came in, day-by-day, putting then into a bookkeeping system on who voted when and how? I hope that this was NOT the case - and if it was, I strongly suggest that we will use a different electoral system next time. Norbert Klein -- 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: Pchum Ben – Days of Gathering to Make Offerings for Those Remembered and for Those Forgotten – Sunday, 20.9.2009 http://tinyurl.com/n8v8fa (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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 26 09:19:47 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote/Apartheid In-Reply-To: <4ABE0ADF.1050303@gmx.net> Message-ID: <819951.91276.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Norbert & Danny,   The record is quite clear here.  When I was being obsteperous about the vote extension I did so with the particular determination to make certain there was some record of circumstances and justification.   The circumstances were made clear: "Everyone extends voting deadlines" and "there are extenuating circumstances that prevented members from voting on time" (Of course Rui's tyrade of insults against me was not justification, just annoyance that I would question our rulers)   The above makes very clear that a tally of voting was kept. And more importantly that it was made known who was not able to vote within the deadline.  Otherwise there would have been no reason to extend.   Apartheid. I have been studying all of ICANNs refusal to allow for a vote. And the categorization of who, what, when and how people vote there and found this remarkable similarity.  http://www.africanaencyclopedia.com/apartheid/apartheid.html --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Norbert Klein wrote: From: Norbert Klein Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 12:36 PM Danny Younger wrote: > Ian, > > The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. > > To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good enough to tell us > (1)  the total number of IGC members > (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the negative on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election. > > One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met. >    Surprise - I do not know what kind of election system is being used, but I hope it is a system where some basic confidentiality is maintained - I thought I was casting a secret ballot, no? Or was somebody checking the ballots as they came in, day-by-day, putting then into a bookkeeping system on who voted when and how? I hope that this was NOT the case - and if it was, I strongly suggest that we will use a different electoral system next time. Norbert Klein -- 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: Pchum Ben – Days of Gathering to Make Offerings for Those Remembered and for Those Forgotten – Sunday, 20.9.2009 http://tinyurl.com/n8v8fa (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 -------------- 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 Sat Sep 26 15:28:31 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:28:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <4ABE0ADF.1050303@gmx.net> References: <237353.63593.qm@web110103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4ABE0ADF.1050303@gmx.net> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909261228q403525ja184b3057c4a6a06@mail.gmail.com> Re: Norbert Klein's comment: "I hope it is a system where some basic confidentiality is maintained - I thought I was casting a secret ballot, no?" FWIW, in the past I've specialized in elections and election law, particularly voting systems, at levels up to and including Congressional election contests in the USA. I currently write in this area. While I do not oppose the secret ballot in a typical election with the public voting if there is any real risk at all of intimidation or retaliation for one's vote the very important and often-missed fact of the secret ballot is this: The secret ballot makes an election system radically UNauditable. That is, by destroying any connection between the ballot and its owner, it is impossible to verify if the ballot was altered or changed in any way after being cast, but before being counted. (For example, some voters vote for too many candidates and this results in a vote for none. It's impossible to say except in extremely sloppy cases, whether that's the voter's own doing or somebody altering the ballot afterward to cancel out "enemy" votes.) However, if the ballots are all counted promptly on election night and the ballots are all secure and untamperable during the election day or early the next morning without a complete break in counting, then with secure chain of custody thus accomplished we can ignore the unauditability problem created by ballot secrecy. However, in all cases where there is a substantial lapse of time of a day or many days, in all elections at least one party raises the issue, which is inevitably present, of whether the ballots have been secure, or whether they can EVEN IN THEORY be made secure, if the usual situation of elections obtains and the government, whose own power and composition is being determined by the ballots, also has custody of the very ballots that determine its own power. For the above reasons, the best practice in voting systems is to consider ballots to be the most perishable of produce, so to speak, that spoil if they leave the ballot box or the balloting location or are stored for more than a day or so. In the case of polling places, additional workers can and should be brought in to do the counting, different from those who took in the ballots, and all problems of having enough personnel are easily solved if we use the same system as that for summonsing jurors to serve as jurors. No task could be more important than counting votes, and it deserves every bit of scrupulous attention and effort it can get. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor PS I'm not expressing an opinion on the IGC vote, I have "no evidence" as they say and don't intend to try to get any evidence myself. That being said, the circumstances of the vote, combined with the secret ballot Mr. Klein wishes for, combine to create a situation in which it is always rational, and even prudent, to be vigilant regarding elections and therefore we can not rule out the possibility of election error or fraud before full investigation is completed, if such investigation is even allowed, and presuming such error or fraud is actually potentially detectable. On 9/26/09, Norbert Klein wrote: > Danny Younger wrote: >> Ian, >> >> The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less >> than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. >> >> To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good >> enough to tell us >> (1) the total number of IGC members >> (2) how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the >> negative on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election. >> >> One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the >> extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met. >> > Surprise - I do not know what kind of election system is being used, but > I hope it is a system where some basic confidentiality is maintained - I > thought I was casting a secret ballot, no? > > Or was somebody checking the ballots as they came in, day-by-day, > putting then into a bookkeeping system on who voted when and how? I hope > that this was NOT the case - and if it was, I strongly suggest that we > will use a different electoral system next time. > > Norbert Klein > > -- > 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: > > Pchum Ben – Days of Gathering to Make Offerings for Those Remembered and for > Those Forgotten – Sunday, 20.9.2009 > http://tinyurl.com/n8v8fa > > (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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 26 16:26:16 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:26:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <237353.63593.qm@web110103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Danny, Anwering yours and other questions - The attached report gives you all the figures you need I think on voting numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a secret ballot - the coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of votes received from time to time. We were never aware of which way any individual voted. The only person who would have that information is the returning officer. The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a few factors - and indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning officer before the ballots were even distributed because of a delay experienced earlier on. The first reason that led us to believe we should extend was that the initial circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days because of a corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the second reason which came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva activities and consultations which may have distracted people from voting. That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the position of voting was at the time the extension was announced, but will concede that the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not have reached the 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see anything improper in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance to participate. On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" wrote: > Ian, > > The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less than > two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. > > To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good enough > to tell us > (1) the total number of IGC members > (2) how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the negative > on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election. > > One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the > extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met. > > > > > > --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter wrote: > >> From: Ian Peter >> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >> Cc: "Ginger Paque" >> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM >> >> >> Results of charter amendment vote >> >> >> As co coordinators we have pleasure >> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment adopted. A >> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour of the >> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number of >> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of members of >> IGC for amending the charter, we have no hesitation in >> declaring the motion carried. >> >> >> >> A full report on the decision is attached. It contains a >> description of the process followed and some recommendations >> and suggestions to clarify various matters which emerged >> during the process. >> >> >> >> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. >> >> >> >> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his assistance >> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. Also to >> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone who voted >> and helped to make this worthwhile change possible. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 26 16:58:18 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:58:18 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <15406034.1253998699077.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Ian and all, No offense intended to anyone, but I agree with the explanation as a reason for the extension of the voting period, but do not agree that that extension was justified. Voting responsibility should take precidence over other activities, not the other way around as one of your explanations suggests. Second if a "Spam Trap" was the cause of some not receiving ballots than it seems very clear to me that such "Spam Traps" were ill advised and implimented which leads me to determine that whomever made those decisions to set those "Spam Traps" were not compatent and remain so unless or until they are perminantly replaced or those particular "Spam Traps" are removed and the policy or reasons for their implementation is reviewed and revised accordingly and without further delay. In conclusion and with all due respect, it should not be the job of the returning officer to determine whether a extension of a voting period is warranted or justified. That decision should be the sole responsibility and at the majority determination of the members themselves in any ligitimate democratic process. -----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter >Sent: Sep 26, 2009 3:26 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Danny Younger >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >Hi Danny, > >Anwering yours and other questions - > >The attached report gives you all the figures you need I think on voting >numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. > >And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a secret ballot - the >coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of votes received >from time to time. We were never aware of which way any individual voted. >The only person who would have that information is the returning officer. > >The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a few factors - and >indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning officer before the >ballots were even distributed because of a delay experienced earlier on. The >first reason that led us to believe we should extend was that the initial >circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days because of a >corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the second reason which >came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva activities and >consultations which may have distracted people from voting. > >That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the position of >voting was at the time the extension was announced, but will concede that >the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not have reached the >2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see anything improper >in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance to participate. > > > > >On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" wrote: > >> Ian, >> >> The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less than >> two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. >> >> To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good enough >> to tell us >> (1) the total number of IGC members >> (2) how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the negative >> on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election. >> >> One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the >> extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met. >> >> >> >> >> >> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >>> Cc: "Ginger Paque" >>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM >>> >>> >>> Results of charter amendment vote >>> >>> >>> As co coordinators we have pleasure >>> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment adopted. A >>> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour of the >>> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number of >>> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of members of >>> IGC for amending the charter, we have no hesitation in >>> declaring the motion carried. >>> >>> >>> >>> A full report on the decision is attached. It contains a >>> description of the process followed and some recommendations >>> and suggestions to clarify various matters which emerged >>> during the process. >>> >>> >>> >>> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. >>> >>> >>> >>> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his assistance >>> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. Also to >>> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone who voted >>> and helped to make this worthwhile change possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----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, 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 27 09:50:39 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:50:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Post JPA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <9830189.1253741887517.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719557@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FDF5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> NTIA people tell me we will know in a few days. > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Does somebody has an idea wha the status of this "Affirmation of > Commitments" paper is? "The Economst" is quoting it in its recent edtion? > Is this the new post JPA agreement? What are the details? And who will > sign it? > > 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 27 10:24:11 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re:amendment vote // Protected Class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <338181.6040.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am very interested here in the reason for an extension.  Are the participants at Geneva a protected class that require special treatment under the rules?  For if they are not the reason given for extending the vote is surely discriminatory and voting fraud.   Giving privilege and special treatment and exception under the rules of society is really only a few hundred years old in any culture. You must remember that before that, the common man had basically no rights and only the elite had rights at all. You know "the King can do no wrong" and all that stuff under Ceasars and Khanhs. In fact the bulk of humanity under most rulers were merely chattel property of a "lord" of some sort.   Protected class is actually well described in an understanding of C++. In a more humane and in fact human social interaction model this link gives the run down quite nicely from a really neat UN, USA, handling of arguments. http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/Jul99/0051.html   So why would Geneva get this special treatment?  Have they been historically abused as a group?  Are they all Euro underclassmen of some sort? Are the gay, young, old, black, red, all handicapped? Just what is it?  The only two factors I can think of are that they are all either being funded to be there or they are indigenous to the region. Well that they are well educated and people of privilege probably is irrelevant.   What example does this list lead with? --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter wrote: From: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 8:26 PM Hi Danny, Anwering yours and other questions - The attached report gives you all the figures you need I think on voting numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a secret ballot - the coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of votes received from time to time. We were never aware of which way any individual voted. The only person who would have that information is the returning officer. The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a few factors - and indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning officer before the ballots were even distributed because of a delay experienced earlier on. The first reason that led us to believe we should extend was that the initial circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days because of a corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the second reason which came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva activities and consultations which may have distracted people from voting. That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the position of voting was at the time the extension was announced, but will concede that the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not have reached the 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see anything improper in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance to participate. On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" wrote: > Ian, > > The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less than > two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. > > To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good enough > to tell us > (1)  the total number of IGC members > (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the negative > on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election. > > One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the > extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met. > > > > > > --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter wrote: > >> From: Ian Peter >> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >> Cc: "Ginger Paque" >> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM >> >> >> Results of charter amendment vote >> >>  >> As co coordinators we have pleasure >> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment adopted. A >> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour of the >> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number of >> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of members of >> IGC for amending the charter, we have no hesitation in >> declaring the motion carried. >> >> >> >> A full report on the decision is attached. It contains a >> description of the process followed and some recommendations >> and suggestions to clarify various matters which emerged >> during the process. >> >> >> >> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. >> >> >> >> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his assistance >> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. Also to >> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone who voted >> and helped to make this worthwhile change possible. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators >> >> >>  >> >> >> >> -----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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Sep 27 13:09:32 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:09:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF sessions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ca3f95$4c3996c0$e4acc440$@com.br> We already decide a colleague from Europe and India will attend the meeting and present our point of view. 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: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:59 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Cc: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF sessions We have been advised within the last hour that IGF requires our nominations for speakers for orientation, opening and closing ceremonies at IGF - and needs them within 72 hours. If you are interested in representing civil societys interests as a speaker at any of these sessions, and will be attending, please confidentially advise Ginger and myself offlist within 48 hours of now. We will make some appropriate decisions and present a slate of suitable candidates to IGF Secretariat for consideration. They wil of course be looking for North/South and gender balance and these factors will be taken into account in the list we forward to them. Ian Peter -------------- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Sep 27 14:05:29 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <552250.57644.qm@web110109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Ian, Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate decision. One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions constitute an improper gaming of the process. Best regards, Danny Younger --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter wrote: > From: Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" > Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:26 PM > Hi Danny, > > Anwering yours and other questions - > > The attached report gives you all the figures you need I > think on voting > numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. > > And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a > secret ballot - the > coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of > votes received > from time to time. We were never aware of which way any > individual voted. > The only person who would have that information is the > returning officer. > > The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a > few factors - and > indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning > officer before the > ballots were even distributed because of a delay > experienced earlier on. The > first reason that led us to believe we should extend was > that the initial > circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days > because of a > corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the > second reason which > came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva > activities and > consultations which may have distracted people from > voting. > > That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the > position of > voting was at the time the extension was announced, but > will concede that > the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not > have reached the > 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see > anything improper > in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance > to participate. > > > > > On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" > wrote: > > > Ian, > > > > The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be > approved by no less than > > two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. > > > > To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would > you might be good enough > > to tell us > > (1)  the total number of IGC members > > (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative > and how many in the negative > > on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the > election. > > > > One would hate to think that the election process was > gamed through the > > extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could > be met. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter > wrote: > > > >> From: Ian Peter > >> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment > vote > >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" > > >> Cc: "Ginger Paque" > >> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM > >> > >> > >> Results of charter amendment vote > >> > >>  > >> As co coordinators we have pleasure > >> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment > adopted. A > >> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour > of the > >> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number > of > >> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of > members of > >> IGC for amending the charter, we have no > hesitation in > >> declaring the motion carried. > >> > >> > >> > >> A full report on the decision is attached. It > contains a > >> description of the process followed and some > recommendations > >> and suggestions to clarify various matters which > emerged > >> during the process. > >> > >> > >> > >> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. > >> > >> > >> > >> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his > assistance > >> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. > Also to > >> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone > who voted > >> and helped to make this worthwhile change > possible. > >> > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators > >> > >> > >>  > >> > >> > >> > >> -----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 From avri at psg.com Sun Sep 27 14:28:13 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:28:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <552250.57644.qm@web110109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <552250.57644.qm@web110109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:05, Danny Younger wrote: > to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular outcome that > they themselves preferred. there is no way they could have done this. Extending the vote could not make more people vote. it also did not make more people vote in favor of the amendments. your consequent does not (can not) follow for you antecedents. if anyone had chosen to not vote during the original period, they could have continued choosing not to vote. an if anyone felt forced to vote, in some way, but having the vote extended, they still could have voted against to amendment. there is no logical way to assume anything from these circumstances. btw, threatening to appeal seems a bit well, threatening. either appeal or don't, but why threaten? 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Sep 27 14:45:48 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <380676.62166.qm@web110113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hello Avri, It seems to me that those who managed the voting process tallied the votes on the date that the vote was scheduled to conclude. They determined that the 2/3 threshhold requirement had not been met (which means that the proposed amendment had failed to muster enough support to pass) and then found a pretext to extend the vote so that a different outcome could be achieved. You argue that extending the vote could not make more people vote... of course it could, and it did. We see the results before us. PS. No one is threatening anything. It was made clear that a 72 hour window for appeals is available, and I am simply seeking answers from those that managed the election. --- On Sun, 9/27/09, Avri Doria wrote: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > To: "Governance/IGC List" > Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 2:28 PM > > On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:05, Danny Younger wrote: > > > to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular > outcome that they themselves preferred. > > there is no way they could have done this. > > Extending the vote could not make more people vote. > it also did not make more people vote in favor of the > amendments. > your consequent does not (can not) follow for you > antecedents. > > if anyone had chosen to not vote during the original > period, they could have continued choosing not to vote. > an if anyone felt forced to vote, in some way, but having > the vote extended, they still could have voted against to > amendment. > > there is no logical way to assume anything from these > circumstances. > > btw, threatening to appeal seems a bit well, threatening. > either appeal or don't, but why threaten? > > 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 avri at psg.com Sun Sep 27 15:10:43 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:10:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <380676.62166.qm@web110113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <380676.62166.qm@web110113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7C05662D-4497-445C-A33B-2FF3A802C89D@psg.com> Hi, i believe that what you describe is a happy coincidence, not a necessary consequent. and I believe that makes all the difference in the world. yes, the coordinators determined that for various reasons not enough people had had a chance to vote. and they provided such a chance. that chance did not force anyone to vote. that chance did not predetermine that anyone would vote. or predetermine the way in which they would vote if they did vote. as I argue, a happy coincidence. but if you need to have it appealed in order to feel comfortable with the amendment, and according to the appeals process can find 3 others who will sign the appeal with you (as I am absolutely certain you can) then you should file the appeal. a. On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:45, Danny Younger wrote: > Hello Avri, > > It seems to me that those who managed the voting process tallied the > votes on the date that the vote was scheduled to conclude. They > determined that the 2/3 threshhold requirement had not been met > (which means that the proposed amendment had failed to muster enough > support to pass) and then found a pretext to extend the vote so that > a different outcome could be achieved. > > You argue that extending the vote could not make more people vote... > of course it could, and it did. We see the results before us. > > PS. No one is threatening anything. It was made clear that a 72 > hour window for appeals is available, and I am simply seeking > answers from those that managed the election. > > > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, Avri Doria wrote: > >> From: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> To: "Governance/IGC List" >> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 2:28 PM >> >> On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:05, Danny Younger wrote: >> >>> to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular >> outcome that they themselves preferred. >> >> there is no way they could have done this. >> >> Extending the vote could not make more people vote. >> it also did not make more people vote in favor of the >> amendments. >> your consequent does not (can not) follow for you >> antecedents. >> >> if anyone had chosen to not vote during the original >> period, they could have continued choosing not to vote. >> an if anyone felt forced to vote, in some way, but having >> the vote extended, they still could have voted against to >> amendment. >> >> there is no logical way to assume anything from these >> circumstances. >> >> btw, threatening to appeal seems a bit well, threatening. >> either appeal or don't, but why threaten? >> >> 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Sep 27 15:17:20 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:17:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <380676.62166.qm@web110113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <380676.62166.qm@web110113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4ABFBA40.70408@wzb.eu> Hi Danny, after the extension of the voting period, I approached various people and asked them to vote. I always said the same thing, it doesn't matter how you vote but please do vote so that we reach the 2/3 threshold. Several of the people I approached during the consultation meeting in Geneva hadn't got a ballot, which in itself seemed to me a good reason for extending the voting period. jeanette Danny Younger wrote: > Hello Avri, > > It seems to me that those who managed the voting process tallied the > votes on the date that the vote was scheduled to conclude. They > determined that the 2/3 threshhold requirement had not been met > (which means that the proposed amendment had failed to muster enough > support to pass) and then found a pretext to extend the vote so that > a different outcome could be achieved. > > You argue that extending the vote could not make more people vote... > of course it could, and it did. We see the results before us. > > PS. No one is threatening anything. It was made clear that a 72 > hour window for appeals is available, and I am simply seeking answers > from those that managed the election. > > > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, Avri Doria wrote: > >> From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Results >> of charter amendment vote To: "Governance/IGC List" >> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 2:28 >> PM >> >> On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:05, Danny Younger wrote: >> >>> to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular >> outcome that they themselves preferred. >> >> there is no way they could have done this. >> >> Extending the vote could not make more people vote. it also did not >> make more people vote in favor of the amendments. your consequent >> does not (can not) follow for you antecedents. >> >> if anyone had chosen to not vote during the original period, they >> could have continued choosing not to vote. an if anyone felt forced >> to vote, in some way, but having the vote extended, they still >> could have voted against to amendment. >> >> there is no logical way to assume anything from these >> circumstances. >> >> btw, threatening to appeal seems a bit well, threatening. either >> appeal or don't, but why threaten? >> >> a. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 27 16:09:27 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:09:27 +1000 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <552250.57644.qm@web110109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Danny, Often in my life I have delayed the start of a meeting because a quorum was not present, or in order to get a more satisfactory turnout. And indeed I have noticed that this is common practice. The action here is much the same, isn't it? Often during my time as an IGC coordinator we have extended the period for feedback on a document in order to get more input. My predecessors have done the same. This helps to get more input and involvement. And during this voting process we sent out several reminders to people who had not voted, reminded people many times on list to vote. Yes, we were trying to gain a quorum so that the members views were explicitly known and so that as many people as possible would participate. All of these could be construed to be "gaming the process" if you like. And all of these are common in an organisation which seeks to involve its members. Indeed, I would think that in a case like this the proper course of action for the co-coordinators was to seek to get as many members as possible to vote, and to work towards getting up the numbers necessary to constitute a quorum. I do not believe any of our actions were improper, and as others have pointed out our actions were designed to get a greater level of participation rather than skew the vote in either direction. I hope that explains our actions. I think as co coordinators it was proper for us to try and avoid a null vote, whatever our personal opinions on the amendments were and irrespective of whether there were 90% for or 90% against. Ian On 28/09/09 4:05 AM, "Danny Younger" wrote: > Ian, > > Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering the > filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural irregularities, and > would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate decision. > > One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the > amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to pass > (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the > pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to > put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the > particular outcome that they themselves preferred. > > Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions > constitute an improper gaming of the process. > > Best regards, > Danny Younger > > > > > --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter wrote: > >> From: Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" >> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:26 PM >> Hi Danny, >> >> Anwering yours and other questions - >> >> The attached report gives you all the figures you need I >> think on voting >> numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. >> >> And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a >> secret ballot - the >> coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of >> votes received >> from time to time. We were never aware of which way any >> individual voted. >> The only person who would have that information is the >> returning officer. >> >> The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a >> few factors - and >> indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning >> officer before the >> ballots were even distributed because of a delay >> experienced earlier on. The >> first reason that led us to believe we should extend was >> that the initial >> circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days >> because of a >> corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the >> second reason which >> came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva >> activities and >> consultations which may have distracted people from >> voting. >> >> That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the >> position of >> voting was at the time the extension was announced, but >> will concede that >> the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not >> have reached the >> 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see >> anything improper >> in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance >> to participate. >> >> >> >> >> On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" >> wrote: >> >>> Ian, >>> >>> The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be >> approved by no less than >>> two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. >>> >>> To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would >> you might be good enough >>> to tell us >>> (1)  the total number of IGC members >>> (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative >> and how many in the negative >>> on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the >> election. >>> >>> One would hate to think that the election process was >> gamed through the >>> extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could >> be met. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter >> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment >> vote >>>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >> >>>> Cc: "Ginger Paque" >>>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> Results of charter amendment vote >>>> >>>>   >>>> As co coordinators we have pleasure >>>> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment >> adopted. A >>>> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour >> of the >>>> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number >> of >>>> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of >> members of >>>> IGC for amending the charter, we have no >> hesitation in >>>> declaring the motion carried. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A full report on the decision is attached. It >> contains a >>>> description of the process followed and some >> recommendations >>>> and suggestions to clarify various matters which >> emerged >>>> during the process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his >> assistance >>>> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. >> Also to >>>> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone >> who voted >>>> and helped to make this worthwhile change >> possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators >>>> >>>> >>>>   >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 27 16:18:00 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:18:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <32945698.1254082680094.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Ian and all, No there is no such reasonable comparison as you suggest. A meeting is not a voting date. When a date is set for voting it is or should be final and therefore not changable or extendable. When I vote in local or national elections either for a candidate or a resolution the voting date is set in advance and announced in advance accordingly as was this vote. Failure to vote by that date for any reason means you will not be voting period. -----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter >Sent: Sep 27, 2009 3:09 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Danny Younger >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >Danny, > >Often in my life I have delayed the start of a meeting because a quorum was >not present, or in order to get a more satisfactory turnout. And indeed I >have noticed that this is common practice. The action here is much the same, >isn't it? > >Often during my time as an IGC coordinator we have extended the period for >feedback on a document in order to get more input. My predecessors have done >the same. This helps to get more input and involvement. > >And during this voting process we sent out several reminders to people who >had not voted, reminded people many times on list to vote. Yes, we were >trying to gain a quorum so that the members views were explicitly known and >so that as many people as possible would participate. > >All of these could be construed to be "gaming the process" if you like. And >all of these are common in an organisation which seeks to involve its >members. > >Indeed, I would think that in a case like this the proper course of action >for the co-coordinators was to seek to get as many members as possible to >vote, and to work towards getting up the numbers necessary to constitute a >quorum. I do not believe any of our actions were improper, and as others >have pointed out our actions were designed to get a greater level of >participation rather than skew the vote in either direction. > >I hope that explains our actions. I think as co coordinators it was proper >for us to try and avoid a null vote, whatever our personal opinions on the >amendments were and irrespective of whether there were 90% for or 90% >against. > >Ian > > > > >On 28/09/09 4:05 AM, "Danny Younger" wrote: > >> Ian, >> >> Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering the >> filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural irregularities, and >> would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate decision. >> >> One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the >> amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to pass >> (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the >> pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to >> put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the >> particular outcome that they themselves preferred. >> >> Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions >> constitute an improper gaming of the process. >> >> Best regards, >> Danny Younger >> >> >> >> >> --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" >>> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:26 PM >>> Hi Danny, >>> >>> Anwering yours and other questions - >>> >>> The attached report gives you all the figures you need I >>> think on voting >>> numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. >>> >>> And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a >>> secret ballot - the >>> coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of >>> votes received >>> from time to time. We were never aware of which way any >>> individual voted. >>> The only person who would have that information is the >>> returning officer. >>> >>> The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a >>> few factors - and >>> indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning >>> officer before the >>> ballots were even distributed because of a delay >>> experienced earlier on. The >>> first reason that led us to believe we should extend was >>> that the initial >>> circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days >>> because of a >>> corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the >>> second reason which >>> came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva >>> activities and >>> consultations which may have distracted people from >>> voting. >>> >>> That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the >>> position of >>> voting was at the time the extension was announced, but >>> will concede that >>> the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not >>> have reached the >>> 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see >>> anything improper >>> in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance >>> to participate. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Ian, >>>> >>>> The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be >>> approved by no less than >>>> two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. >>>> >>>> To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would >>> you might be good enough >>>> to tell us >>>> (1)  the total number of IGC members >>>> (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative >>> and how many in the negative >>>> on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the >>> election. >>>> >>>> One would hate to think that the election process was >>> gamed through the >>>> extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could >>> be met. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Ian Peter >>>>> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment >>> vote >>>>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >>> >>>>> Cc: "Ginger Paque" >>>>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Results of charter amendment vote >>>>> >>>>>   >>>>> As co coordinators we have pleasure >>>>> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment >>> adopted. A >>>>> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour >>> of the >>>>> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number >>> of >>>>> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of >>> members of >>>>> IGC for amending the charter, we have no >>> hesitation in >>>>> declaring the motion carried. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A full report on the decision is attached. It >>> contains a >>>>> description of the process followed and some >>> recommendations >>>>> and suggestions to clarify various matters which >>> emerged >>>>> during the process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his >>> assistance >>>>> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. >>> Also to >>>>> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone >>> who voted >>>>> and helped to make this worthwhile change >>> possible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>   >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----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 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Sun Sep 27 16:28:33 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:28:33 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <22208306.1254083313419.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> avri and all, I see no threat in Dannys words. Sorry you do. If Danny wants to file an appeal I would join him. And yes, extending the vote does 'put suttle preasur on those that had not voted by the deadline weather or not you recognize that or not. Obviously you do not. That's fine, but telling. Jeanetts earlier remarks regarding folks/members not recieving ballots as a reason to extend the vote is also weak as there was a publicall announced web site by which they could have voted from. If indeed those folks/members did not take note or same, than failure to vote by the deadline is not a ligitimate enough excuse not to have voted even if they didn't recieve a ballot, and they could also have ask for one sent to them privately from Ginger if there was indeed a improper "Spam Trap" in place at the time. Ergo those late voting members did not excercise their responsibility to vote appropriately accordingly. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:28 PM >To: Governance/IGC List >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > > >On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:05, Danny Younger wrote: > >> to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular outcome that >> they themselves preferred. > >there is no way they could have done this. > >Extending the vote could not make more people vote. >it also did not make more people vote in favor of the amendments. >your consequent does not (can not) follow for you antecedents. > >if anyone had chosen to not vote during the original period, they >could have continued choosing not to vote. >an if anyone felt forced to vote, in some way, but having the vote >extended, they still could have voted against to amendment. > >there is no logical way to assume anything from these circumstances. > >btw, threatening to appeal seems a bit well, threatening. >either appeal or don't, but why threaten? > >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 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 Sep 27 16:32:44 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:32:44 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Danny and all, There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that suspicion. So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger >Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >Ian, > >Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate decision. > >One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. > >Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions constitute an improper gaming of the process. > >Best regards, >Danny Younger > > > > >--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter wrote: > >> From: Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" >> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:26 PM >> Hi Danny, >> >> Anwering yours and other questions - >> >> The attached report gives you all the figures you need I >> think on voting >> numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. >> >> And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a >> secret ballot - the >> coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of >> votes received >> from time to time. We were never aware of which way any >> individual voted. >> The only person who would have that information is the >> returning officer. >> >> The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a >> few factors - and >> indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning >> officer before the >> ballots were even distributed because of a delay >> experienced earlier on. The >> first reason that led us to believe we should extend was >> that the initial >> circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days >> because of a >> corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the >> second reason which >> came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva >> activities and >> consultations which may have distracted people from >> voting. >> >> That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the >> position of >> voting was at the time the extension was announced, but >> will concede that >> the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not >> have reached the >> 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see >> anything improper >> in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance >> to participate. >> >> >> >> >> On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" >> wrote: >> >> > Ian, >> > >> > The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be >> approved by no less than >> > two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. >> > >> > To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would >> you might be good enough >> > to tell us >> > (1)  the total number of IGC members >> > (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative >> and how many in the negative >> > on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the >> election. >> > >> > One would hate to think that the election process was >> gamed through the >> > extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could >> be met. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter >> wrote: >> > >> >> From: Ian Peter >> >> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment >> vote >> >> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" >> >> >> Cc: "Ginger Paque" >> >> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM >> >> >> >> >> >> Results of charter amendment vote >> >> >> >>  >> >> As co coordinators we have pleasure >> >> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment >> adopted. A >> >> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour >> of the >> >> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number >> of >> >> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of >> members of >> >> IGC for amending the charter, we have no >> hesitation in >> >> declaring the motion carried. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A full report on the decision is attached. It >> contains a >> >> description of the process followed and some >> recommendations >> >> and suggestions to clarify various matters which >> emerged >> >> during the process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his >> assistance >> >> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. >> Also to >> >> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone >> who voted >> >> and helped to make this worthwhile change >> possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators >> >> >> >> >> >>  >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----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 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 Sep 27 17:02:37 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:02:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re:amendment vote // Protected Class Message-ID: <7088513.1254085357786.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Sep 27 17:22:53 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <731414.71073.qm@web110107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Ian, Thank you for your response. While I do not share your view on the propriety of actions taken, I will not be filing an appeal. Thanks again for your explanation. -- danny -- --- On Sun, 9/27/09, Ian Peter wrote: > From: Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" > Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 4:09 PM > Danny, > > Often in my life I have delayed the start of a meeting > because a quorum was > not present, or in order to get a more satisfactory > turnout. And indeed I > have noticed that this is common practice. The action here > is much the same, > isn't it? > > Often during my time as an IGC coordinator we have extended > the period for > feedback on a document in order to get more input. My > predecessors have done > the same. This helps to get more input and involvement. > > And during this voting process we sent out several > reminders to people who > had not voted, reminded people many times on list to vote. > Yes, we were > trying to gain a quorum so that the members views were > explicitly known and > so that as many people as possible would participate. > > All of these could be construed to be "gaming the process" > if you like. And > all of these are common in an organisation which seeks to > involve its > members. > > Indeed, I would think that in a case like this the proper > course of action > for the co-coordinators was to seek to get as many members > as possible to > vote, and to work towards getting up the numbers necessary > to constitute a > quorum. I do not believe any of our actions were improper, > and as others > have pointed out our actions were designed to get a greater > level of > participation rather than skew the vote in either > direction. > > I hope that explains our actions. I think as co > coordinators it was proper > for us to try and avoid a null vote, whatever our personal > opinions on the > amendments were and irrespective of whether there were 90% > for or 90% > against. > > Ian > > > > > On 28/09/09 4:05 AM, "Danny Younger" > wrote: > > > Ian, > > > > Thank you for the clarification.  Please be > advised that I am considering the > > filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of > procedural irregularities, and > > would appreciate a few answers to help guide my > ultimate decision. > > > > One gets the impression from your remarks that those > that managed the > > amendment vote process were fully aware that the > amendment had failed to pass > > (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold > requirement) as of the > > pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these > managers then proceeded to > > put forth a series of justifications to extend the > vote in order to obtain the > > particular outcome that they themselves preferred. > > > > Is this impression substantially correct?  If so, > in my view such actions > > constitute an improper gaming of the process. > > > > Best regards, > > Danny Younger > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter > wrote: > > > >> From: Ian Peter > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter > amendment vote > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, > "Danny Younger" > >> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:26 PM > >> Hi Danny, > >> > >> Anwering yours and other questions - > >> > >> The attached report gives you all the figures you > need I > >> think on voting > >> numbers and how the 2/3 was determined. > >> > >> And as regards the questions raised about privacy > and a > >> secret ballot - the > >> coordinators were aware of a progressive total of > number of > >> votes received > >> from time to time. We were never aware of which > way any > >> individual voted. > >> The only person who would have that information is > the > >> returning officer. > >> > >> The decision to extend the deadline was made > because of a > >> few factors - and > >> indeed was discussed between coordinators and > returning > >> officer before the > >> ballots were even distributed because of a delay > >> experienced earlier on. The > >> first reason that led us to believe we should > extend was > >> that the initial > >> circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of > days > >> because of a > >> corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - > the > >> second reason which > >> came up later was the clash with the round of > Geneva > >> activities and > >> consultations which may have distracted people > from > >> voting. > >> > >> That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty > what the > >> position of > >> voting was at the time the extension was > announced, but > >> will concede that > >> the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage > may not > >> have reached the > >> 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I > don't see > >> anything improper > >> in an extension to ensure that more members have > the chance > >> to participate. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Ian, > >>> > >>> The Charter tells us that a charter amendment > must be > >> approved by no less than > >>> two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. > >>> > >>> To put to rest any concerns that we might > have, would > >> you might be good enough > >>> to tell us > >>> (1)  the total number of IGC members > >>> (2)  how many votes were cast in the > affirmative > >> and how many in the negative > >>> on the day that the coordinators decided to > extend the > >> election. > >>> > >>> One would hate to think that the election > process was > >> gamed through the > >>> extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold > could > >> be met. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Ian Peter > >>>> Subject: [governance] Results of charter > amendment > >> vote > >>>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" > >> > >>>> Cc: "Ginger Paque" > >>>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Results of charter amendment vote > >>>> > >>>>   > >>>> As co coordinators we have pleasure > >>>> in declaring the  proposed charter > amendment > >> adopted. A > >>>> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% > in favour > >> of the > >>>> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As > the number > >> of > >>>> positive votes also exceeded the required > 2/3 of > >> members of > >>>> IGC for amending the charter, we have no > >> hesitation in > >>>> declaring the motion carried. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A full report on the decision is attached. > It > >> contains a > >>>> description of the process followed and > some > >> recommendations > >>>> and suggestions to clarify various matters > which > >> emerged > >>>> during the process. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 > hours. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for > his > >> assistance > >>>> and expert involvement in conducting this > ballot. > >> Also to > >>>> those who proposed this amendment, and to > everyone > >> who voted > >>>> and helped to make this worthwhile change > >> possible. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co > coordinators > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>   > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From femlists at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 22:00:02 2009 From: femlists at gmail.com (Magaly Pazello) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:00:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Dear list, after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite my silence. I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do. I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made within the regular voting period or during the extension period. I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right? Best, Magaly Pazello 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams > Danny and all, > > There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not > necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have > occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that > suspicion. > > So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't > ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Danny Younger > >Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > > > >Ian, > > > >Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering > the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural > irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate > decision. > > > >One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the > amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to > pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the > pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded > to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to > obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. > > > >Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions > constitute an improper gaming of the process. > > > >Best regards, > >Danny Younger > > > >[...] > -------------- 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 Mon Sep 28 01:43:33 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:43:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [CIResearch-SA] Cloud Computing Message-ID: <863DD7CA934148B7B68FC03419B0541A@userPC> A very thoughtful reflection on experience with "cloud computing" from a community informatics perspective (that strongly supports Parminder's earlier thoughts... Thanks Rean! MBG -----Original Message----- From: ci-research-sa-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:ci-research-sa-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Rean van der Merwe Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:57 AM To: ci-research-sa at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [CIResearch-SA] Cloud Computing A few thoughts on the buzz of "cloud computing" from first hand experience - and I hope the ideas are more than tech-speak ... Nothing that means to be conclusive, just a few "stones in the bush". We run a few dedicated internet servers that support community websites, and were very interested in the idea. The principles, more than the geek-ness, were what attracted. In theory, we could replace the physical, sometimes troublesome machine we had in a room at a local service provider, with a small share in an almost infinite "cloud" of machines. To think through the benefits, the nearest analogy I could make was the difference between one full time person, and a group of part timers doing work. If the full time person stops what they do, output drops to zero. In a group, if any one stops, it has a small impact on output - particularly if the rest seamlessly take over the shortfall. Better than that - we could expand and contract the virtual "workforce" to meet immediate requirements, again seamlessly. So if we suddenly required extra work to be done, we would not have to formally contract another worker - the group would simply allocate more resource to us. And all this for lower cost than our own machine! The practical reality explains why we still have a real machine in a room - at the end of the cloud market where most of us operate, the idea creates a virtual "tragedy of the commons." This larger group of workers, in computing terms, the "cloud" of servers, were also great from the service providers point of view. They could allocate tasks so that the cloud as a whole, the workforce, were constantly at optimum capacity. In practice, our sites performed as if they were under "load" 24/7 - everything was constant, but slow. Since our sites were not resource hungry, the arrangement meant that we were effectively constantly allocating some of our resource to folk that were abusing the situation. When I looked at the discussion forums of several large providers of cloud services, I found my experience was not unique. Most who cared about the responsiveness of their service were soon leaving the clouds. A second experience brought a more worrying aspect of the cloud idea home to me. That internet services are constantly being aggregated upwards. In other words, we are relying on larger and larger organisations to provide the services we have come to be dependant on. Organisations that are effectively accountable to themselves only, to the income of their share holders. Only mass protest has the impact to shift them - but protest we rely on their services to be able to make... My practical experience - we paid for a service from Google to filter spam in our email system, the same filter used in Google mail. When we ran into trouble, I naturally mailed tech support thinking we'd be up and running in no time....but got no response. Two years, near a dozen attempts later, we have basically given up and written off the money. The nearest thing to a response was an automated email directing us to yet another inhuman interface. It was a thrill when folk realised the internet could take on all sorts of power and bureaucracy to potentially build a more pragmatically democratic society. I fear that in the place of these earlier bureaucracies, with civic minded constitutions imperfect as they are, we are cheering along something altogether more worrying. Facebook is now by some definitions the largest "community" on earth, but a community all the same that is traded as stock for profit. We read recently about Skype potentially being shut down because of a dispute over intellectual property - the developers did not sell rights to the underlying technology to eBay when they traded the brand - the company and its community of users. I'll stop here - the mail is starting to read like a blog post. But the ideas hopefully relevant to CI and enthusiasm about the cloud. I liked the much more coherent take on the topic here: http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?table_of_contents Rean On 26 Sep 2009, at 07:37, Michael Gurstein wrote: Good question Margaret--the short answer is computing where the software (and data) does not reside on the local computer but in some central data bank and is accessed as and when needed for us. Gmail is a good example of computing from the "cloud". M -------------- 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Sep 28 04:36:37 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:36:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <731414.71073.qm@web110107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <731414.71073.qm@web110107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1254126997.4022.200.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear IGC I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved amending the IGC charter. But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is also not clear that extension violated any rule. My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the right thing to do, even if not ideal. The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is the responsibility of the coordinators). This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board of directors. Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit law in California (where APC is registered). One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real time using telephone, online or video conferencing. We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, and who are located in just about all timezones. To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can be submitted electronically. Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we don't use voting very often. Cheers Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 28 05:34:18 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:34:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <1254126997.4022.200.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <731414.71073.qm@web110107.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1254126997.4022.200.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: In message <1254126997.4022.200.camel at anriette-laptop>, at 10:36:37 on Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >time using telephone, online or video conferencing. > >We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >and who are located in just about all timezones. > >To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >be submitted electronically. Presumably this is the reason for the ICANN system of Board meetings, where they do considerable work asynchronously (even sometimes in different rooms of the same hotel) then vote on the last day of the meeting without there appearing to be much discussion of the 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Sep 28 08:12:23 2009 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:12:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC Comment on proposed Bylaw Changes Message-ID: <1254139943.4022.764.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear all For your information, APC's comment on the proposed ICANN bylaws changes compiled by Willie Currie, APC's policy manager. Anriette Comment on ICANN’s Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability Association for Progressive Communications (APC) 25 September 2009 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ICANN’s Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability. Problems with the proposed bylaws There are two inter-related problems with the proposed bylaws: 1. While the provision for the ICANN community to request for the Board to re-examine a decision is a step forward, there is still no democratic sanction for the Board if the community fundamentally disagrees with a Board decision even after it is re-examined by the Board. The community still does not have the power to dismiss the Board. 2. While the Independent Review Body and the expansion of its functions is a step forward, it still does not address the problem that the Board can ignore its findings and recommendations if the Board determines that the recommendations 'are not in the best interests of ICANN'. Both bylaws ultimately depend on the disposition of the Board towards the issue under re-examination or review. Certainly it would be an unwise Board that completely ignores the expressed views of two-thirds of the ICANN community or the reasoned recommendations of senior jurists, but bylaws are not about dispositions, they are to do with fair and reasonable conduct by those in authority. In the event that that is lacking, there needs to be some ultimate sanction such as a power for the ICANN community to dismiss the Board. The ICANN President's Strategy Committee (PSC) recognised this in its recommendations on accountability when it proposed the establishment of 'an extraordinary mechanism for the community to remove and replace the Board in special circumstances' in its recommendation 2.9. This is simple democracy and is a basic feature of all democratic organisations. That it is missing from ICANN's bylaws is a signifier of a lack of accountability and democratic procedure that cannot be cured by the current proposed amendments. It is also interesting to note that the EU in its recent communication on internet governance was of the view that ’one element of an evolution of the current governance system could be the completion of an internal ICANN reform leading to full accountability and transparency'.[1] Unfortunately, inasmuch as these two bylaw amendments are intended to achieve 'full accountability', they fall short. Recommendations 1. APC supports the proposed bylaw to have a Community Re-examination Vote but the threshold of a two-thirds majority vote of two-thirds of the Councils of all Supporting Organizations and a two-thirds majority vote of each Advisory Committee is too high. That threshold is appropriate for a process to remove the Board. For a vote to re-examine a Board decision a simple majority is more appropriate for the following reasons: - An accountability mechanism has to be meaningful, in the sense that it should be capable of being exercised. In a multi-stakeholder community like ICANN, setting the threshold too high for the community to even get to first base will have the effect of discouraging the exercise of this accountability mechanism and make it moot. This carries the risk of the attempt to put in place accountability mechanisms itself instilling little institutional confidence in ICANN and adding to the frustrations of the community. - An accountability mechanism should act as a check on the Board to be particularly mindful of the consequences of its decisions with regard to fairness, fidelity and rationality. If the threshold is set too high and the chances of the community ever exercising this option are too remote, that diminishes the value of the accountability mechanism as real check on the Board. This in turn will play back on the issue of instilling institutional confidence and instead of full accountability, stakeholders will see token accountability. 2. APC does not understand why recommendation 2.7 of the PSC has been dropped. This recommendation is that ICANN should ‘seekadvice from a committee of independent experts on the restructuring of the review mechanisms to provide a set of mechanisms that will provide for improved accountability in relation to individual rights and having regard to the two proposed further mechanisms in RECOMMENDATIONS 2.8 and 2.9’.The reason given in the table of the ICANN report "Improving Institutional Confidence: The Way Forward", published on 31 May 2009 is that ‘These measures alone are insufficient to address all community concerns’. Obviously getting advice is not going to address all community concerns. Independent advice is of value in breaking down the risk of ‘group think’ in the formulation of policy and bylaws by an institution. Not getting advice when it is explicitly recommended by an august body like the PSC which had the explicit mandate of making recommendations on instilling institutional confidence then raises the question of why this recommendation was dropped. This creates in stakeholders a perception that ICANN does not take the issue seriously enough, especially when a non- reason is offered as formal justification for not seeking advice. Accordingly APC recommends that ICANN does proceed to implement recommendation 2.7 of the PSC and seek advice from a committee of independent experts on the restructuring of review mechanisms. 3. APC is of the view that proceeding to establish a new Independent Review Body while an important case is underway before the existing Independent Review Panel is problematic because the issue of the powers of the Independent Review Panel are part of the process under review. The views of ICANN with regard to the powers of the Independent Review Panel are well canvassed in its submission in the ICM Registry, LLC v. ICANN matter currently being heard before the Independent Review Panel.[2] ICANN essentially argues that the results of the Independent Review Process are not binding on the ICANN Board because ‘the plain language of the IRP provisions, which are set forth in Article IV, section 3 of ICANN’s Bylaws, provides that the Panel’s declaration is advisory to the ICANN Board and is not binding.’[3] In its response, ICANN further noted the views of its advisory committee that worked on the development of an independent review process to the effect that ‘the ICANN Board should retain ultimate authority over ICANN”s affairs – after all, it is the Board, not the [independent review panel], that will be chosen by (and is directly accountable to) the membership and the supporting organizations’.[4] While APC supports the expansion of the proposed Independent Review Body’s mandate to include fairness and rationality, we are concerned that the Board can still ignore its findings and recommendations if the Board determines that the recommendations 'are not in the best interests of ICANN'. This is an issue that a committee of independent experts could address. It would also be wise to see what the current Independent Review Panel has to say on this issue in its finding and recommendations on the ICM Registry, LLC v. ICANN matter, before establishing the proposed Independent Review Body. 4. APC recommends that the issue of the PSC recommendation 2.9 on an extraordinary mechanism for the community to remove and replace the Board in special circumstances be reconsidered by a committee of independent experts. Without such a measure, ICANN cannot be considered a democratic body, plain and simple. ICANN’s reasons advanced for dropping this recommendation state that ‘this recommendation recently drew much resistance and doubt from community members’ and that it is held that it is ‘too difficult to invoke and would create unacceptable and uncontrollable risks if it were invoked’ . Mention is made of a concern that ‘the focus on voting and majorities the mechanisms require are far removed from ICANN’s consensus-based model.’[5] These reasons do not really spell out what these risks would be nor do they illuminate why a predominantly consensus-based model could not have in place a mechanism to be used in special circumstances, perhaps when the consensus breaks down, for example. In conclusion APC commends ICANN for taking steps to improve accountability in the two proposed bylaws. Unfortunately they do not go far enough in the direction of full accountability. Willie Currie APC Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager ________________________________________________________________________ [1] Commission of the European Communities: Internet Governance: the next steps, 18 June 2009 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communication/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf [2]ICANN’s Response to Claimants Memorial on the Merits http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icann-response-for-icm-memorial-on-merits-08may09-en.pdf [3]ICANN’s Response to Claimants Memorial on the Merits, paragraph 78, p 29 [4] ICANN’s Response to Claimants Memorial on the Merits, paragraph 89, p34 [5] ICANN: “Improving Institutional Confidence: The Way Forward", 31 May 2009 -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Sep 28 09:12:46 2009 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Proposed ICANN Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability Message-ID: <860996.29287.qm@web110106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Please be advised that ICANN has extended the deadline for comments on its accountability proposals -- you now have until 27 November. Commentary has been received thus far from: Mike Roberts Danny Younger Edward Hasbrouck James M. Bladel Jeffrey A. Williams David W. Maher Becky Burr  Martin Boyle Hugh Dierker Joe Baptista Looking forward to the further commentary that IGC members can offer... comments may be read at http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-proposed-bylaws/ comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Sep 28 09:26:37 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:26:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed ICANN Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability In-Reply-To: <860996.29287.qm@web110106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <860996.29287.qm@web110106.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: hi, yeah, i was about to do mine the night of the 25th when i noticed that with great relief. should have thought to announce it here. good that you did. a. On 28 Sep 2009, at 09:12, Danny Younger wrote: > Please be advised that ICANN has extended the deadline for comments > on its accountability proposals -- you now have until 27 November. > > Commentary has been received thus far from: > > Mike Roberts > Danny Younger > Edward Hasbrouck > James M. Bladel > Jeffrey A. Williams > David W. Maher > Becky Burr > Martin Boyle > Hugh Dierker > Joe Baptista > > Looking forward to the further commentary that IGC members can > offer... > > comments may be read at http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-proposed-bylaws/ > comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 28 13:38:03 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:38:03 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] APC Comment on proposed Bylaw Changes Message-ID: <8787492.1254159484142.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Anriette and all, Many of these proposed changes I believe INEGroup members could support, but that is not yet known for certain at present. One problem here in these proposed bylaw changes is the refrence to ICANN as a "Community". It is not a "Community" in an of itself, it is a non-profit Calif. corporation that is contracted to the UGG's DOC/NTIA. So I would suggest that a wording change of the "Internet Community" replace the "ICANN Community" accordingly in order to eliminate any factual confusion. -----Original Message----- >From: Anriette Esterhuysen >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 7:12 AM >To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >Subject: [governance] APC Comment on proposed Bylaw Changes > >Dear all > >For your information, APC's comment on the proposed ICANN bylaws changes >compiled by Willie Currie, APC's policy manager. > >Anriette > > >Comment on ICANN’s Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability > >Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > >25 September 2009 > >Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ICANN’s Proposed Bylaw >Changes to Improve Accountability. > >Problems with the proposed bylaws > >There are two inter-related problems with the proposed bylaws: > >1. While the provision for the ICANN community to request for the Board >to re-examine a decision is a step forward, there is still no democratic >sanction for the Board if the community fundamentally disagrees with a >Board decision even after it is re-examined by the Board. The community >still does not have the power to dismiss the Board. > >2. While the Independent Review Body and the expansion of its functions >is a step forward, it still does not address the problem that the Board >can ignore its findings and recommendations if the Board determines that >the recommendations 'are not in the best interests of ICANN'. > >Both bylaws ultimately depend on the disposition of the Board towards >the issue under re-examination or review. Certainly it would be an >unwise Board that completely ignores the expressed views of two-thirds >of the ICANN community or the reasoned recommendations of senior >jurists, but bylaws are not about dispositions, they are to do with fair >and reasonable conduct by those in authority. In the event that that is >lacking, there needs to be some ultimate sanction such as a power for >the ICANN community to dismiss the Board. The ICANN President's Strategy >Committee (PSC) recognised this in its recommendations on accountability >when it proposed the establishment of 'an extraordinary mechanism for >the community to remove and replace the Board in special circumstances' >in its recommendation 2.9. This is simple democracy and is a basic >feature of all democratic organisations. That it is missing from ICANN's >bylaws is a signifier of a lack of accountability and democratic >procedure that cannot be cured by the current proposed amendments. > >It is also interesting to note that the EU in its recent communication >on internet governance was of the view that ’one element of an evolution >of the current governance system could be the completion of an >internal ICANN reform leading to full accountability and >transparency'.[1] Unfortunately, inasmuch as these two bylaw amendments >are intended to achieve 'full accountability', they fall short. > >Recommendations > > 1. APC supports the proposed bylaw to have a Community > Re-examination Vote but the threshold of a two-thirds majority > vote of two-thirds of the Councils of all Supporting > Organizations and a two-thirds majority vote of each Advisory > Committee is too high. That threshold is appropriate for a > process to remove the Board. For a vote to re-examine a Board > decision a simple majority is more appropriate for the following > reasons: > >- An accountability mechanism has to be meaningful, in the sense >that it should be capable of being exercised. In a multi-stakeholder >community like ICANN, setting the threshold too high for the community >to even get to first base will have the effect of discouraging the >exercise of this accountability mechanism and make it moot. This carries >the risk of the attempt to put in place accountability mechanisms itself >instilling little institutional confidence in ICANN and adding to the >frustrations of the community. > >- An accountability mechanism should act as a check on the Board >to be particularly mindful of the consequences of its decisions with >regard to fairness, fidelity and rationality. If the threshold is set >too high and the chances of the community ever exercising this option >are too remote, that diminishes the value of the accountability >mechanism as real check on the Board. This in turn will play back on the >issue of instilling institutional confidence and instead of full >accountability, stakeholders will see token accountability. > >2. APC does not understand why recommendation 2.7 of the PSC has >been dropped. This recommendation is that ICANN should ‘seekadvice from >a committee of independent experts on the restructuring of the review >mechanisms to provide a set of mechanisms that will provide for improved >accountability in relation to individual rights and having regard to the >two proposed further mechanisms in RECOMMENDATIONS 2.8 and 2.9’.The >reason given in the table of the ICANN report "Improving Institutional >Confidence: The Way Forward", published on 31 May 2009 is that ‘These >measures alone are insufficient to address all community concerns’. > Obviously getting advice is not going to address all community >concerns. Independent advice is of value in breaking down the risk of >‘group think’ in the formulation of policy and bylaws by an institution. >Not getting advice when it is explicitly recommended by an august body >like the PSC which had the explicit mandate of making recommendations on >instilling institutional confidence then raises the question of why this >recommendation was dropped. This creates in stakeholders a perception >that ICANN does not take the issue seriously enough, especially when a >non- reason is offered as formal justification for not seeking advice. > Accordingly APC recommends that ICANN does proceed to implement >recommendation 2.7 of the PSC and seek advice from a committee of >independent experts on the restructuring of review mechanisms. > >3. APC is of the view that proceeding to establish a new Independent >Review Body while an important case is underway before the existing >Independent Review Panel is problematic because the issue of the powers >of the Independent Review Panel are part of the process under review. >The views of ICANN with regard to the powers of the Independent Review >Panel are well canvassed in its submission in the ICM Registry, LLC v. >ICANN matter currently being heard before the Independent Review >Panel.[2] ICANN essentially argues that the results of the Independent >Review Process are not binding on the ICANN Board because ‘the plain >language of the IRP provisions, which are set forth in Article IV, >section 3 of ICANN’s Bylaws, provides that the Panel’s declaration is >advisory to the ICANN Board and is not binding.’[3] In its response, >ICANN further noted the views of its advisory committee that worked on >the development of an independent review process to the effect that ‘the >ICANN Board should retain ultimate authority over ICANN”s affairs – >after all, it is the Board, not the [independent review panel], that >will be chosen by (and is directly accountable to) the membership and >the supporting organizations’.[4] > >While APC supports the expansion of the proposed Independent Review >Body’s mandate to include fairness and rationality, we are concerned >that the Board can still ignore its findings and recommendations if the >Board determines that the recommendations 'are not in the best interests >of ICANN'. This is an issue that a committee of independent experts >could address. It would also be wise to see what the current Independent >Review Panel has to say on this issue in its finding and recommendations >on the ICM Registry, LLC v. ICANN matter, before establishing the >proposed Independent Review Body. > >4. APC recommends that the issue of the PSC recommendation 2.9 on an >extraordinary mechanism for the community to remove and replace the >Board in special circumstances be reconsidered by a committee of >independent experts. Without such a measure, ICANN cannot be considered >a democratic body, plain and simple. ICANN’s reasons advanced for >dropping this recommendation state that ‘this recommendation recently >drew much resistance and doubt from community members’ and that it is >held that it is ‘too difficult to invoke and would create unacceptable >and uncontrollable risks if it were invoked’ . Mention is made of a >concern that ‘the focus on voting and majorities the mechanisms require >are far removed from ICANN’s consensus-based model.’[5] These reasons >do not really spell out what these risks would be nor do they illuminate >why a predominantly consensus-based model could not have in place a >mechanism to be used in special circumstances, perhaps when the >consensus breaks down, for example. > >In conclusion > >APC commends ICANN for taking steps to improve accountability in the two >proposed bylaws. Unfortunately they do not go far enough in the >direction of full accountability. > >Willie Currie > >APC Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >[1] Commission of the European Communities: Internet Governance: the >next steps, 18 June 2009 >http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/docs/communication/comm2009_277_fin_en.pdf > > >[2]ICANN’s Response to Claimants Memorial on the Merits >http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icann-response-for-icm-memorial-on-merits-08may09-en.pdf > > >[3]ICANN’s Response to Claimants Memorial on the Merits, paragraph 78, p >29 > > >[4] ICANN’s Response to Claimants Memorial on the Merits, paragraph 89, >p34 > > >[5] ICANN: “Improving Institutional Confidence: The Way Forward", 31 >May 2009 > > >-- >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >anriette esterhuysen - executive director >association for progressive communications >p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 >anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 >http://www.apc.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, 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 Sep 28 13:46:02 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:46:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <1108466.1254159962334.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Roland and all, We don't know for a fact that durring ICANN gatherings that Noard members do "Considerable Work" asynchronously and so the Calif. law is correct in it's effacacy accordingly. This could be mitigated however if all of the Board members were far more open and transparent and would release and or make public all asynchronous activities as Board members and/or in any capacity with respect to ICANN. I doubt that such will occur however. -----Original Message----- >From: Roland Perry >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 4:34 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >In message <1254126997.4022.200.camel at anriette-laptop>, at 10:36:37 on >Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >>One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >>California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >>organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >>Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >>time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >> >>We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >>want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >>and who are located in just about all timezones. >> >>To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >>meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >>asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >>be submitted electronically. > >Presumably this is the reason for the ICANN system of Board meetings, >where they do considerable work asynchronously (even sometimes in >different rooms of the same hotel) then vote on the last day of the >meeting without there appearing to be much discussion of the 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 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 13:50:48 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:50:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <76f819dd0909281050p3e1c7128p129753bd106d9b8d@mail.gmail.com> I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an explanation at least: 1. Elections are PURE procedure. 2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election irregularities." 3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights therein. 4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed to complete the voting process. 5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal opportunity to vote. 6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away from the polls. 7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate more than others, in most circumstances. For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 requirement FAIL. Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the 2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against the amendment is simply not to vote at all. Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under normal election law. That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it was fairly constituted and understood the law. For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it would be a much closer case. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had voted. On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear IGC > > I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the > extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved > amending the IGC charter. > > But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members > expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and > there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another > they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of > limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. > > As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter > amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this > disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the > new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is > also not clear that extension violated any rule. > > My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were > motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the > right thing to do, even if not ideal. > > The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some > people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would > have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for > the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I > believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal > of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is > the responsibility of the coordinators). > > This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are > normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. > > >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using > this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or > meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. > > We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather > as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and > endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our > network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In > fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board > of directors. > > Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very > interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. > > Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit > law in California (where APC is registered). > > One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that > California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the > organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). > Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real > time using telephone, online or video conferencing. > > We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and > want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, > and who are located in just about all timezones. > > To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online > meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be > asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can > be submitted electronically. > > Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we > don't use voting very often. > > Cheers > > Anriette > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 28 13:58:48 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:58:48 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment Message-ID: <18601336.1254160728627.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Paul and all, Thank you Paul for this execellent and substative legal analysis. Well done and I concur! Now are you willing to officially a protest accordingly? If so I would join you as seemingly Ginger and Ian have indicated is required, but by what authority I know not. Please advise as soon as possible. -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Lehto >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 12:50 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen >Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote > >I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in >the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, >but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of >facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at >least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an >explanation at least: > >1. Elections are PURE procedure. > >2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure >renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least >renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election >irregularities." > >3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body >is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, >substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a >quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present >for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights >therein. > >4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such >persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed >to complete the voting process. > >5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of >a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, >or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of >showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may >rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for >the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result >intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal >opportunity to vote. > >6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the >sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a >vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, >even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action >against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional >rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the >most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they >were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote >suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in >achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away >from the polls. > >7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I >cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the >opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election >principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The >parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the >election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, >and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various >reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate >more than others, in most circumstances. > >For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding >the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the >persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause >they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without >going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested >parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules >above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be >grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds >for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule >requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 >requirement FAIL. > >Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause >charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can >be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a >claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an >end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the >2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way >to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get >around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the >case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were >achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole >purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in >a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement >for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended >unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn >out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. > >A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of >ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense >enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a >proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't >entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to >those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against >the amendment is simply not to vote at all. > >Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the >regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order >to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first >place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or >work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, >which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the >amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved >and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus >and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose >of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the >requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is >a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself >could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would >require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. > >In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or >the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like >voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in >combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under >normal election law. > >That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law >or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure >might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal >principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not >as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of >replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it >was fairly constituted and understood the law. > >For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of >political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally >applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was >no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes >tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT >for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, >particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted >so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of >proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines >the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy >taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core >purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every >election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it >would be a much closer case. > >Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > >PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment >process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a >firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had >voted. >On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear IGC >> >> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >> amending the IGC charter. >> >> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >> >> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >> >> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >> >> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is >> the responsibility of the coordinators). >> >> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >> >> >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >> >> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather >> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >> of directors. >> >> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >> >> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >> law in California (where APC is registered). >> >> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >> >> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >> and who are located in just about all timezones. >> >> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >> be submitted electronically. >> >> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >> don't use voting very often. >> >> Cheers >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 >906-204-4026 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Sep 28 13:58:59 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:58:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <1108466.1254159962334.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <1108466.1254159962334.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <+OC$6RujlPwKFA1M@perry.co.uk> In message <1108466.1254159962334.JavaMail.root at mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> , at 12:46:02 on Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > We don't know for a fact that durring ICANN gatherings that Noard members >do "Considerable Work" asynchronously and so the Calif. law is correct >in it's effacacy accordingly. This could be mitigated however if all of the >Board members were far more open and transparent and would release >and or make public all asynchronous activities as Board members and/or >in any capacity with respect to ICANN. I doubt that such will occur >however. Most of the asynchronous work is between board meetings, but simple observations and discussions confirm there's also much happening at the meetings. If you come to one, please introduce yourself (I'm generally easy to find), and I'll tell you all about 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 28 14:17:52 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:17:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <30485564.1254161872255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Roland and all, I am a huge supporter of asynchronous work and utilize it frequently. I rarely attend such meetings unless directed to do so and sponsered accordingly, but thanks for the personalize invite! >:) Properly managed and effected ICANN meetings should require few if any in person attendance. My companies Board meetings are only one a year required for all Board members to attend physically/personally. This is in part a security measure, and in part a economic one. Works well once you get the hang of it, as it were. What's missing in such asynchronous work by the ICANN board members is that it is unseen and therefore questionalby known as to it actually occuring. Given the history of ICANN Board decisions and GNSO council decisions terribly poor history, such questioning concerns appear significantly justified accordingly. -----Original Message----- >From: Roland Perry >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 12:58 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >In message ><1108466.1254159962334.JavaMail.root at mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> >, at 12:46:02 on Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams > writes >> We don't know for a fact that durring ICANN gatherings that Noard members >>do "Considerable Work" asynchronously and so the Calif. law is correct >>in it's effacacy accordingly. This could be mitigated however if all of the >>Board members were far more open and transparent and would release >>and or make public all asynchronous activities as Board members and/or >>in any capacity with respect to ICANN. I doubt that such will occur >>however. > >Most of the asynchronous work is between board meetings, but simple >observations and discussions confirm there's also much happening at the >meetings. If you come to one, please introduce yourself (I'm generally >easy to find), and I'll tell you all about 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 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 14:52:05 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:52:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <18601336.1254160728627.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <18601336.1254160728627.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909281152y7e6acccy2a7d4638ce685016@mail.gmail.com> At the present moment, I see some issues and I see why there are different views expressed on this list. My post speaks for itself in suggesting that I think invalidity of the election has the upper hand because of purpose of the 2/3 requirement (a charter provision) to force a simultaneous focus by a supermajority before allowing charter amendment is undermined and/or defeated by extending the time to vote, because any charter amendment could pass given an extension of a day, a week, or more... That being said, I don't presently have the fire in the belly, as they say. Looking at it another way, if my analysis doesn't persuade in the post (presuming it's read reasonably carefully), then an adversarial appeal to the same body is unlikely succeed. Thus, my email post is my appeal, such as it is. Whether or not these reasons succeed this time, hopefully the elections in the future will all be planned and operated such that an extension like this doesn't happen again. While folks are acting out of a sense of justice in a certain sense by supporting what seems like an expedient, turnout-increasing action done apparently in the spirit of participation, the more weighty point is that election rules are "games," albeit rather serious games with real consequences, whose rules can't be changed in mid-stream or after the fact. BEFOREHAND, we should all support rules that maximize participation, information, and so forth. That's not the issue before us here. As in our case, once an election is set, it's quite different: The rules especially aren't supposed to be changed for any reasons that fall under the classes of expedience, convenience, or accommodation of some late arrivers (I being among that class it appears, but not voting), because that means that certain late arrivers are being treated unequally compared to others, and in this specific case that the purpose of 2/3 rules is defeated: to force an engaged electorate to exist in a given time on pain of not passing the amendment. People running elections can and should pride themselves in running fair elections. The trick is whether or not this pride translates into denial if a mistake happens, or even if a valid action is perceived reasonably by others as invalid, thus undermining the appearance of fairness of the election (which is also fatal to the acceptance of the election's result). As with judges, they are disqualified from deciding cases even if innocent, if a reasonable person could conclude that there's an appearance of a conflict of interest, or bias, or other factor that would impede the fairness and impartiality of the process. It seems to me that at the very least the appearance standard is met, based on several people taking issue with the decision. Elections are supposed to be squeaky clean even in appearance such that they are the unimpeachable voice of the voters. To achieve that voice and have it be authoritative in any given election, we have to come together as a community under particular rules of time/place/duration etc. At minimum, for future elections, a rule or rules should be promulgated (preferably as a charter amendment to the 2/3 rule) governing extensions of time under circumstances where quorum could be questioned, but of course that would not resolve the issues of appearance as to this election. Particularly since this is a group dedicated to the purpose of good governance, good procedures rigorously followed would be a good thing to strive for and stick to in all cases. Personally, I think that if the election were redone and if as is likely the measure passes easily in all respects that would be a victory for best practices and not a waste in any good governance sense of that word. Instead, it bespeaks a high respect for procedural integrity, even if it means the effort of a new election. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/28/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Paul and all, > > Thank you Paul for this execellent and substative legal analysis. Well > done > and I concur! Now are you willing to officially a protest accordingly? If > so I would join you as seemingly Ginger and Ian have indicated is required, > but by what authority I know not. Please advise as soon as possible. > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Paul Lehto >>Sent: Sep 28, 2009 12:50 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen >>Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment >> vote >> >>I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in >>the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, >>but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of >>facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at >>least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an >>explanation at least: >> >>1. Elections are PURE procedure. >> >>2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure >>renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least >>renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election >>irregularities." >> >>3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body >>is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, >>substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a >>quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present >>for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights >>therein. >> >>4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such >>persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed >>to complete the voting process. >> >>5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of >>a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, >>or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of >>showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may >>rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for >>the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result >>intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal >>opportunity to vote. >> >>6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the >>sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a >>vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, >>even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action >>against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional >>rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the >>most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they >>were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote >>suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in >>achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away >>from the polls. >> >>7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I >>cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the >>opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election >>principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The >>parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the >>election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, >>and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various >>reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate >>more than others, in most circumstances. >> >>For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding >>the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the >>persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause >>they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without >>going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested >>parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules >>above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be >>grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds >>for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule >>requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 >>requirement FAIL. >> >>Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause >>charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can >>be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a >>claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an >>end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the >>2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way >>to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get >>around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the >>case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were >>achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole >>purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in >>a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement >>for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended >>unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn >>out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. >> >>A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of >>ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense >>enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a >>proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't >>entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to >>those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against >>the amendment is simply not to vote at all. >> >>Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the >>regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order >>to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first >>place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or >>work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, >>which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the >>amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved >>and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus >>and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose >>of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the >>requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is >>a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself >>could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would >>require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. >> >>In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or >>the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like >>voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in >>combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under >>normal election law. >> >>That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law >>or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure >>might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal >>principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not >>as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of >>replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it >>was fairly constituted and understood the law. >> >>For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of >>political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally >>applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was >>no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes >>tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT >>for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, >>particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted >>so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of >>proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines >>the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy >>taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core >>purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every >>election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it >>would be a much closer case. >> >>Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> >>PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment >>process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a >>firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had >>voted. >>On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Dear IGC >>> >>> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >>> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >>> amending the IGC charter. >>> >>> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >>> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >>> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >>> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >>> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >>> >>> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >>> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >>> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >>> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >>> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >>> >>> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >>> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >>> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >>> >>> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >>> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >>> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >>> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >>> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >>> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is >>> the responsibility of the coordinators). >>> >>> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >>> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >>> >>> >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >>> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >>> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >>> >>> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather >>> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >>> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >>> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >>> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >>> of directors. >>> >>> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >>> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >>> >>> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >>> law in California (where APC is registered). >>> >>> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >>> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >>> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >>> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >>> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >>> >>> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >>> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >>> and who are located in just about all timezones. >>> >>> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >>> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >>> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >>> be submitted electronically. >>> >>> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >>> don't use voting very often. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>906-204-4026 >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, 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 > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 28 15:17:25 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <1254126997.4022.200.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <727881.37425.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please tell us more about your experience in extending votes.   What is the criteria used?  Who decides to extend them? Do incumbents fair better than others? Are they referendums?   I note that your national elections have never been extended. What elections are your refering to that are extended?   This is very important to governance and your insight should be shared. --- On Mon, 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: From: Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 8:36 AM Dear IGC I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved amending the IGC charter. But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not."  It is also not clear that extension violated any rule. My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the right thing to do, even if not ideal. The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is the responsibility of the coordinators). This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board of directors. Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit law in California (where APC is registered). One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real time using telephone, online or video conferencing. We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, and who are located in just about all timezones. To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can be submitted electronically. Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we don't use voting very often. Cheers Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 28 15:32:32 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909281050p3e1c7128p129753bd106d9b8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <675192.35949.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think it is very sad that the very people being funded to work on an International Governance model are totally ambivilant to the rights of voters.   Convenience, "the way we always do it", and "it does not really matter" are just really really sad commentaries on the morals of, not the workers, not the officials, but the membership in general.   Sometimes I get tired of being berated and shunned and censored for constantly pounding on the moral and ethical obligations of our high society.  Sometimes I am just defeated. But sometimes, like this, it seems futile but even more of an emergency.   --- On Mon, 9/28/09, Paul Lehto wrote: From: Paul Lehto Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen" Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 5:50 PM I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of facts.   So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an explanation at least: 1. Elections are PURE procedure. 2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election irregularities." 3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body is unable to legitimately take action.  In the case of a meeting, substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights therein. 4.  Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed to complete the voting process. 5.  In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal opportunity to vote. 6.  An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, even by court order.  This voter has a strong legal cause of action against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they were faultless in not casting a timely ballot.  This is why "vote suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away from the polls. 7.  Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election principles to make up new rules after the election commences.  The parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate more than others, in most circumstances. For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 requirement FAIL. Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule.  If the 2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different.  Another way to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get around the charter provision requiring 2/3.  If this were not the case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in a scheduled election would be defeated.  A supermajority requirement for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout.  Thus, a proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against the amendment is simply not to vote at all. Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first place.   The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the amendments.  Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus and concern and it is defeated.  In either case, however, the purpose of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is a new election a waste of time or resources.  Only the 2/3 rule itself could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under normal election law. That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it was fairly constituted and understood the law. For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of proper jurisdiction.  The defect is a procedural one, which undermines the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every election simply through extending the time.  But for the 2/3 rule it would be a much closer case. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had voted. On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear IGC > > I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the > extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved > amending the IGC charter. > > But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members > expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and > there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another > they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of > limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. > > As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter > amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this > disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the > new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not."  It is > also not clear that extension violated any rule. > > My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were > motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the > right thing to do, even if not ideal. > > The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some > people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would > have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for > the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I > believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal > of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is > the responsibility of the coordinators). > > This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are > normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. > > >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using > this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or > meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. > > We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather > as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and > endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our > network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In > fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board > of directors. > > Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very > interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. > > Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit > law in California (where APC is registered). > > One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that > California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the > organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). > Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real > time using telephone, online or video conferencing. > > We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and > want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, > and who are located in just about all timezones. > > To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online > meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be > asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can > be submitted electronically. > > Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we > don't use voting very often. > > Cheers > > Anriette > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 Sep 28 15:35:40 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:35:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re Net Neutrality FW: NetworkWorld sent by Lee McKnight Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2B863BAA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, As many of you are aware, I have been calling net neutrality 'regulation' problematic for some time. Even principles are...problematic. See below re AT&T accusing Google of violating net neutrality. Lee McKnight This NetworkWorld article was sent to you by lmcknigh at syr.edu ________________________________ AT&T accuses Google of violating telecom law In a letter to the FCC, it says Google Voice blocks calls to some rural areas By Stephen Lawson , NetworkWorld.com 9/25/09 AT&T on Friday accused Google of violating the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules by blocking Google Voice calls to some rural areas. Read the entire article at http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/092509-att-accuses-google-of-violating.html 4. AT&T accuses Google of violating telecom law ________________________________ Copyright 2007 NetworkWorld, Inc. All rights reserved ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 28 15:47:08 2009 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:47:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <30485564.1254161872255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <30485564.1254161872255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: In message <30485564.1254161872255.JavaMail.root at mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net >, at 13:17:52 on Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams writes > I am a huge supporter of asynchronous work and utilize it >frequently. I rarely attend such meetings unless directed >to do so and sponsered accordingly, but thanks for the >personalize invite! >:) > > Properly managed and effected ICANN meetings should require >few if any in person attendance. My companies Board meetings >are only one a year required for all Board members to attend >physically/personally. This is in part a security measure, and in >part a economic one. Works well once you get the hang of it, as >it were. People want things to progress faster than that. This is "Internet time" after all. > What's missing in such asynchronous work by the ICANN >board members is that it is unseen and therefore questionalby >known as to it actually occuring. Given the history of ICANN >Board decisions and GNSO council decisions terribly poor history, >such questioning concerns appear significantly justified accordingly. The GNSO website has a huge amount of information on it, including Agenda, Minutes and an MP3 of the proceedings (most often a teleconference). Seems to be just what you are advocating. -- 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 Mon Sep 28 15:59:30 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:59:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: References: <30485564.1254161872255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On 28 Sep 2009, at 15:47, Roland Perry wrote: > The GNSO website has a huge amount of information on it, including > Agenda, Minutes and an MP3 of the proceedings (most often a > teleconference). Seems to be just what you are advocating. i dearly love the GNSO and its council and relish in every bit of its process (and bet i could win a trivia contest on it). I even think it is appropriate because of the GNSO's role in recommending policy that affects millions around the world. For a group acting in the role recommending regulatory and contractual conditions, this level of process, and perhaps even more, is appropriate. in the IGC, however, which i see as a group meant to build capacity and to advocate, it would be sad to see that much process. i advocate a fairly minimal set of guidelines and the evolution of practice we are mostly comfortable with and just enough to keep the group sane - especially as long as we have an appeals mechanism. tp put it another way: if the IGC starts to develop GNSO/ICANN level processes, i am sure i will find a cliff to drive myself off of. 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 Mon Sep 28 16:15:08 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:15:08 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <3621979.1254168909117.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Avri and all, Please don't jump off any cliff's, the sudden stop at the bottom can be very devistating! >:( But perhaps consider a long vacation to a remote local where no Internet connection exists would be appropriate. >;) -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 2:59 PM >To: Governance/IGC List >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > > >On 28 Sep 2009, at 15:47, Roland Perry wrote: > >> The GNSO website has a huge amount of information on it, including >> Agenda, Minutes and an MP3 of the proceedings (most often a >> teleconference). Seems to be just what you are advocating. > > >i dearly love the GNSO and its council and relish in every bit of its >process (and bet i could win a trivia contest on it). I even think it >is appropriate because of the GNSO's role in recommending policy that >affects millions around the world. For a group acting in the role >recommending regulatory and contractual conditions, this level of >process, and perhaps even more, is appropriate. > >in the IGC, however, which i see as a group meant to build capacity >and to advocate, it would be sad to see that much process. i advocate >a fairly minimal set of guidelines and the evolution of practice we >are mostly comfortable with and just enough to keep the group sane - >especially as long as we have an appeals mechanism. > >tp put it another way: if the IGC starts to develop GNSO/ICANN level >processes, i am sure i will find a cliff to drive myself off of. > >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 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 Sep 28 16:22:14 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:22:14 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <3514853.1254169334633.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Roland and all, -----Original Message----- >From: Roland Perry >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 2:47 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >In message ><30485564.1254161872255.JavaMail.root at mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net > >, at 13:17:52 on Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams > writes >> I am a huge supporter of asynchronous work and utilize it >>frequently. I rarely attend such meetings unless directed >>to do so and sponsered accordingly, but thanks for the >>personalize invite! >:) >> >> Properly managed and effected ICANN meetings should require >>few if any in person attendance. My companies Board meetings >>are only one a year required for all Board members to attend >>physically/personally. This is in part a security measure, and in >>part a economic one. Works well once you get the hang of it, as >>it were. > >People want things to progress faster than that. This is "Internet time" >after all. Of course, which is why our board meetings other than once a year are not in person meetings. Keeps things moving along in Internet Time. > >> What's missing in such asynchronous work by the ICANN >>board members is that it is unseen and therefore questionably >>known as to it actually occurring. Given the history of ICANN >>Board decisions and GNSO council decisions terribly poor history, >>such questioning concerns appear significantly justified accordingly. > >The GNSO website has a huge amount of information on it, including >Agenda, Minutes and an MP3 of the proceedings (most often a >teleconference). Seems to be just what you are advocating. Close but not quite. I am advocating more along the lines of live Internet video conferencing combined with the rest as you mention without the Censorship, lack of openness and transparency, and vindictive retorts. >-- >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 Mon Sep 28 16:29:22 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:29:22 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re Net Neutrality FW: NetworkWorld sent by Lee Message-ID: <32210417.1254169762431.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> lee and all, Principals themselves are not problematic, only those that violate them knowingly make such seem so. Google often violates net neutrality. Yet AT&T making the accusation is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Although this dog hunts in Googles case, it difficult to distinguish whom is the hunted and whom is the pray as they are both in this instance, indistinguishable. -----Original Message----- >From: Lee W McKnight >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 2:35 PM >To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >Subject: [governance] Re Net Neutrality FW: NetworkWorld sent by Lee McKnight > >FYI, > >As many of you are aware, I have been calling net neutrality 'regulation' problematic for some time. > >Even principles are...problematic. > >See below re AT&T accusing Google of violating net neutrality. > >Lee McKnight > > >This NetworkWorld article was sent to you by lmcknigh at syr.edu > >________________________________ >AT&T accuses Google of violating telecom law > >In a letter to the FCC, it says Google Voice blocks calls to some rural areas >By Stephen Lawson , NetworkWorld.com 9/25/09 > >AT&T on Friday accused Google of violating the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules by blocking Google Voice calls to some rural areas. > >Read the entire article at >http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/092509-att-accuses-google-of-violating.html > > 4. AT&T accuses Google of violating telecom law > >________________________________ >Copyright 2007 NetworkWorld, Inc. All rights reserved >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Sep 28 16:58:44 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:58:44 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment Message-ID: <303554.1254171524290.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Paul and all, I second and join you in this appeal. let's get this debate on this appeal going so as to bring it to a conclusion in the most diliberate yet expiditious a manner as possible. Ian please make note of the appeal process being underway in whatever manner is most appropriate and direct. -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Lehto >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 1:52 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen >Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote > >At the present moment, I see some issues and I see why there are >different views expressed on this list. My post speaks for itself in >suggesting that I think invalidity of the election has the upper hand >because of purpose of the 2/3 requirement (a charter provision) to >force a simultaneous focus by a supermajority before allowing charter >amendment is undermined and/or defeated by extending the time to vote, >because any charter amendment could pass given an extension of a day, >a week, or more... That being said, I don't presently have the fire >in the belly, as they say. > >Looking at it another way, if my analysis doesn't persuade in the post >(presuming it's read reasonably carefully), then an adversarial appeal >to the same body is unlikely succeed. Thus, my email post is my >appeal, such as it is. Whether or not these reasons succeed this >time, hopefully the elections in the future will all be planned and >operated such that an extension like this doesn't happen again. While >folks are acting out of a sense of justice in a certain sense by >supporting what seems like an expedient, turnout-increasing action >done apparently in the spirit of participation, the more weighty point >is that election rules are "games," albeit rather serious games with >real consequences, whose rules can't be changed in mid-stream or after >the fact. > >BEFOREHAND, we should all support rules that maximize participation, >information, and so forth. That's not the issue before us here. > >As in our case, once an election is set, it's quite different: The >rules especially aren't supposed to be changed for any reasons that >fall under the classes of expedience, convenience, or accommodation of >some late arrivers (I being among that class it appears, but not >voting), because that means that certain late arrivers are being >treated unequally compared to others, and in this specific case that >the purpose of 2/3 rules is defeated: to force an engaged electorate >to exist in a given time on pain of not passing the amendment. > >People running elections can and should pride themselves in running >fair elections. The trick is whether or not this pride translates >into denial if a mistake happens, or even if a valid action is >perceived reasonably by others as invalid, thus undermining the >appearance of fairness of the election (which is also fatal to the >acceptance of the election's result). As with judges, they are >disqualified from deciding cases even if innocent, if a reasonable >person could conclude that there's an appearance of a conflict of >interest, or bias, or other factor that would impede the fairness and >impartiality of the process. It seems to me that at the very least >the appearance standard is met, based on several people taking issue >with the decision. > >Elections are supposed to be squeaky clean even in appearance such >that they are the unimpeachable voice of the voters. To achieve that >voice and have it be authoritative in any given election, we have to >come together as a community under particular rules of >time/place/duration etc. > >At minimum, for future elections, a rule or rules should be >promulgated (preferably as a charter amendment to the 2/3 rule) >governing extensions of time under circumstances where quorum could be >questioned, but of course that would not resolve the issues of >appearance as to this election. Particularly since this is a group >dedicated to the purpose of good governance, good procedures >rigorously followed would be a good thing to strive for and stick to >in all cases. > >Personally, I think that if the election were redone and if as is >likely the measure passes easily in all respects that would be a >victory for best practices and not a waste in any good governance >sense of that word. Instead, it bespeaks a high respect for >procedural integrity, even if it means the effort of a new election. > >Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > >On 9/28/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >> Paul and all, >> >> Thank you Paul for this execellent and substative legal analysis. Well >> done >> and I concur! Now are you willing to officially a protest accordingly? If >> so I would join you as seemingly Ginger and Ian have indicated is required, >> but by what authority I know not. Please advise as soon as possible. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: Paul Lehto >>>Sent: Sep 28, 2009 12:50 PM >>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment >>> vote >>> >>>I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in >>>the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, >>>but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of >>>facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at >>>least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an >>>explanation at least: >>> >>>1. Elections are PURE procedure. >>> >>>2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure >>>renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least >>>renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election >>>irregularities." >>> >>>3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body >>>is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, >>>substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a >>>quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present >>>for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights >>>therein. >>> >>>4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such >>>persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed >>>to complete the voting process. >>> >>>5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of >>>a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, >>>or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of >>>showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may >>>rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for >>>the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result >>>intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal >>>opportunity to vote. >>> >>>6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the >>>sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a >>>vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, >>>even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action >>>against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional >>>rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the >>>most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they >>>were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote >>>suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in >>>achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away >>>from the polls. >>> >>>7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I >>>cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the >>>opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election >>>principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The >>>parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the >>>election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, >>>and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various >>>reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate >>>more than others, in most circumstances. >>> >>>For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding >>>the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the >>>persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause >>>they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without >>>going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested >>>parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules >>>above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be >>>grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds >>>for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule >>>requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 >>>requirement FAIL. >>> >>>Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause >>>charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can >>>be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a >>>claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an >>>end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the >>>2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way >>>to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get >>>around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the >>>case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were >>>achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole >>>purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in >>>a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement >>>for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended >>>unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn >>>out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. >>> >>>A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of >>>ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense >>>enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a >>>proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't >>>entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to >>>those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against >>>the amendment is simply not to vote at all. >>> >>>Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the >>>regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order >>>to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first >>>place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or >>>work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, >>>which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the >>>amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved >>>and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus >>>and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose >>>of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the >>>requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is >>>a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself >>>could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would >>>require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. >>> >>>In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or >>>the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like >>>voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in >>>combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under >>>normal election law. >>> >>>That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law >>>or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure >>>might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal >>>principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not >>>as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of >>>replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it >>>was fairly constituted and understood the law. >>> >>>For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of >>>political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally >>>applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was >>>no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes >>>tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT >>>for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, >>>particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted >>>so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of >>>proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines >>>the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy >>>taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core >>>purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every >>>election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it >>>would be a much closer case. >>> >>>Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >>> >>>PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment >>>process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a >>>firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had >>>voted. >>>On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> Dear IGC >>>> >>>> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >>>> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >>>> amending the IGC charter. >>>> >>>> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >>>> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >>>> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >>>> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >>>> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >>>> >>>> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >>>> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >>>> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >>>> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >>>> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >>>> >>>> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >>>> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >>>> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >>>> >>>> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >>>> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >>>> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >>>> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >>>> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >>>> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is >>>> the responsibility of the coordinators). >>>> >>>> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >>>> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >>>> >>>> >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >>>> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >>>> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >>>> >>>> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather >>>> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >>>> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >>>> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >>>> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >>>> of directors. >>>> >>>> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >>>> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >>>> >>>> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >>>> law in California (where APC is registered). >>>> >>>> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >>>> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >>>> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >>>> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >>>> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >>>> >>>> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >>>> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >>>> and who are located in just about all timezones. >>>> >>>> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >>>> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >>>> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >>>> be submitted electronically. >>>> >>>> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >>>> don't use voting very often. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>>906-204-4026 >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, 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 >> >> > > >-- >Paul R Lehto, J.D. >P.O. Box #1 >Ishpeming, MI 49849 >lehto.paul at gmail.com >906-204-4026 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 28 17:53:06 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:53:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909281050p3e1c7128p129753bd106d9b8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Paul, I think a number of the points you make are very valid, and indeed it would help if these and other matters were clarified in the IGC Charter (can be read at www.igcaucus.org). I would really encourage you to apply your knowledge and skills to a working group to amend the charter and get rid of some of the anomalies that lead to less than perfect procedures here, and also to endless procedural discussions. That could make efforts in the future both easier to conduct and also less contentious. But as regards the comparison you make - there are of course a number of differences between US elections and IGC charter amendments, in scale, body of law, jurisdiction, and form. Substantial differences and I am sure you acknowledge that. Coming back to the current situation. While acknowledging a less than perfect process, it is not the coordinators intention to conduct another ballot, unless of course we are so directed by a successful appeal. The current Appeals Team selected in 2009 is Jeanette Hofmann (Europe), Adam Peake (Asia), Carlos Afonso (LAC), Ken Lohento (Africa) and Fouad Bajwa (Mid East/South Asia). If anyone is to mount an appeal they should contact the appeals team members directly and advise them. The period for appeals has officially closed, but if the coordinators are contacted by the appeals team to advise that a late appeal has been accepted and an appeals process is underway, we will of course allow that to proceed. Ian Peter On 29/09/09 3:50 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: > I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in > the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, > but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of > facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at > least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an > explanation at least: > > 1. Elections are PURE procedure. > > 2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure > renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least > renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election > irregularities." > > 3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body > is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, > substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a > quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present > for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights > therein. > > 4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such > persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed > to complete the voting process. > > 5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of > a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, > or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of > showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may > rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for > the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result > intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal > opportunity to vote. > > 6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the > sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a > vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, > even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action > against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional > rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the > most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they > were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote > suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in > achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away > from the polls. > > 7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I > cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the > opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election > principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The > parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the > election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, > and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various > reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate > more than others, in most circumstances. > > For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding > the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the > persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause > they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without > going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested > parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules > above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be > grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds > for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule > requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 > requirement FAIL. > > Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause > charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can > be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a > claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an > end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the > 2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way > to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get > around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the > case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were > achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole > purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in > a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement > for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended > unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn > out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. > > A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of > ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense > enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a > proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't > entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to > those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against > the amendment is simply not to vote at all. > > Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the > regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order > to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first > place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or > work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, > which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the > amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved > and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus > and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose > of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the > requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is > a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself > could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would > require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. > > In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or > the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like > voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in > combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under > normal election law. > > That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law > or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure > might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal > principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not > as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of > replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it > was fairly constituted and understood the law. > > For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of > political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally > applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was > no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes > tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT > for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, > particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted > so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of > proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines > the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy > taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core > purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every > election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it > would be a much closer case. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment > process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a > firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had > voted. > On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear IGC >> >> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >> amending the IGC charter. >> >> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >> >> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >> >> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >> >> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is >> the responsibility of the coordinators). >> >> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >> >>> From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >> >> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather >> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >> of directors. >> >> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >> >> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >> law in California (where APC is registered). >> >> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >> >> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >> and who are located in just about all timezones. >> >> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >> be submitted electronically. >> >> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >> don't use voting very often. >> >> Cheers >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Sep 28 18:17:09 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:17:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909281152y7e6acccy2a7d4638ce685016@mail.gmail.com> References: <18601336.1254160728627.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <76f819dd0909281152y7e6acccy2a7d4638ce685016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AC135E5.9090800@wzb.eu> > Personally, I think that if the election were redone and if as is > likely the measure passes easily in all respects that would be a > victory for best practices and not a waste in any good governance > sense of that word. Instead, it bespeaks a high respect for > procedural integrity, even if it means the effort of a new election. Hi Paul, you seem to think that it would be easy to mobilize the same number of voters once again. I can assure you, it is everything but easy. A lot of people who once cared about this caucus have stopped to pay attention, not least because of its worsening signal to noise ratio. The 2/3 threshold was designed with the aim to make changes of the charter difficult. What the charter architects didn't and couldn't foresee is that a changing of the charter would become nearly impossible because a growing number of caucus members abandons the group simply by ignoring it. Unless we manage to improve the quality of discussion on this list, it will soon be impossible to establish majorities for anything. jeanette > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/28/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >> Paul and all, >> >> Thank you Paul for this execellent and substative legal analysis. Well >> done >> and I concur! Now are you willing to officially a protest accordingly? If >> so I would join you as seemingly Ginger and Ian have indicated is required, >> but by what authority I know not. Please advise as soon as possible. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul Lehto >>> Sent: Sep 28, 2009 12:50 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment >>> vote >>> >>> I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in >>> the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, >>> but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of >>> facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at >>> least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an >>> explanation at least: >>> >>> 1. Elections are PURE procedure. >>> >>> 2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure >>> renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least >>> renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election >>> irregularities." >>> >>> 3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body >>> is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, >>> substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a >>> quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present >>> for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights >>> therein. >>> >>> 4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such >>> persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed >>> to complete the voting process. >>> >>> 5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of >>> a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, >>> or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of >>> showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may >>> rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for >>> the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result >>> intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal >>> opportunity to vote. >>> >>> 6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the >>> sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a >>> vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, >>> even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action >>> against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional >>> rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the >>> most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they >>> were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote >>> suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in >>> achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away >> >from the polls. >>> 7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I >>> cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the >>> opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election >>> principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The >>> parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the >>> election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, >>> and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various >>> reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate >>> more than others, in most circumstances. >>> >>> For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding >>> the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the >>> persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause >>> they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without >>> going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested >>> parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules >>> above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be >>> grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds >>> for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule >>> requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 >>> requirement FAIL. >>> >>> Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause >>> charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can >>> be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a >>> claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an >>> end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the >>> 2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way >>> to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get >>> around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the >>> case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were >>> achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole >>> purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in >>> a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement >>> for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended >>> unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn >>> out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. >>> >>> A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of >>> ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense >>> enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a >>> proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't >>> entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to >>> those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against >>> the amendment is simply not to vote at all. >>> >>> Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the >>> regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order >>> to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first >>> place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or >>> work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, >>> which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the >>> amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved >>> and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus >>> and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose >>> of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the >>> requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is >>> a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself >>> could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would >>> require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. >>> >>> In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or >>> the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like >>> voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in >>> combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under >>> normal election law. >>> >>> That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law >>> or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure >>> might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal >>> principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not >>> as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of >>> replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it >>> was fairly constituted and understood the law. >>> >>> For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of >>> political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally >>> applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was >>> no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes >>> tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT >>> for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, >>> particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted >>> so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of >>> proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines >>> the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy >>> taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core >>> purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every >>> election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it >>> would be a much closer case. >>> >>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >>> >>> PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment >>> process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a >>> firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had >>> voted. >>> On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> Dear IGC >>>> >>>> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >>>> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >>>> amending the IGC charter. >>>> >>>> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >>>> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >>>> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >>>> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >>>> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >>>> >>>> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >>>> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >>>> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >>>> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >>>> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >>>> >>>> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >>>> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >>>> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >>>> >>>> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >>>> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >>>> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >>>> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >>>> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >>>> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is >>>> the responsibility of the coordinators). >>>> >>>> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >>>> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >>>> >>>> >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >>>> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >>>> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >>>> >>>> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather >>>> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >>>> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >>>> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >>>> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >>>> of directors. >>>> >>>> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >>>> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >>>> >>>> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >>>> law in California (where APC is registered). >>>> >>>> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >>>> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >>>> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >>>> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >>>> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >>>> >>>> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >>>> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >>>> and who are located in just about all timezones. >>>> >>>> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >>>> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >>>> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >>>> be submitted electronically. >>>> >>>> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >>>> don't use voting very often. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, 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 >>> 906-204-4026 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 muguet at mdpi.net Mon Sep 28 19:02:18 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:02:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] 29-30 Sept 2009 International Symposium on Multilingualism and Cyberspace Message-ID: <4AC1407A.50102@mdpi.net> MAATA *International Symposium on Multilingualism and Cyberspace* http://www.veusdelmon.cat/simc/_en/simc_en.html * 29-30 Sept 2009 Symposium international sur le multilinguisme dans le cyberespace * * Simposio Internacional sobre Multilingüismo y Ciberespacio* http://www.veusdelmon.cat/simc/_es/simc_es.html Best Francis Sorry for this late annoucement, Too busy lately... -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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/recherche/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: Barcelona-sept09.png Type: image/png Size: 14117 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logos_tots_peu.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 30184 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 29 01:33:10 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:33:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the procedure used. The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership portion who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this attracts 200 people who call themselves "members" at point A and after two years 35% of them lose interest and stop participating, then no charter amendments would ever be possible. If the vote were a close one it would be different, of course. As it is, all that happened was that the vote extension allowed the will of an overwhelming majority to be executed. ________________________________ From: Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Dear list, after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite my silence. I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do. I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made within the regular voting period or during the extension period. I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right? Best, Magaly Pazello 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams > Danny and all, There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that suspicion. So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger > >Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >Ian, > >Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate decision. > >One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. > >Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions constitute an improper gaming of the process. > >Best regards, >Danny Younger > >[...] -------------- 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 Sep 29 04:13:00 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:43:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC membership In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AC1C18C.4040009@itforchange.net> The membership issue of this group certainly needs to be sorted out. I have said this before, but I can see only one real way out. To have a clear membership which is renewed bi-yearly. It doesnt matter if there are only 30-40 such members. They need to feel a collective (sorry for using that word, Milton :) ) responsibility for the caucus. At present it is too much of 'some one else will do it' and coordinators are left with an impossible job. Organizational issues should be dealt by this members list, with free and regular references to the larger group, which consists of those who are interested in the caucus, in the matters of getting information, contributing, and deliberating, but not willing to take much responsibility, which is of course very fine. For most purposes one will never feel the difference while participating in the regular larger group.... it will only be more or less an exceptional thing to take matters to the members group Otherwise we will keep ending up in some absurd situations of the kind Milton refers to. I appeal to coordinators to take this issue up. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the > procedure used. > > The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership > portion who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this > attracts 200 people who call themselves "members" at point A and after > two years 35% of them lose interest and stop participating, then no > charter amendments would ever be possible. If the vote were a close > one it would be different, of course. As it is, all that happened was > that the vote extension allowed the will of an overwhelming majority > to be executed. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > > > > Dear list, > after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have > been following up the discussions and all other process here in the > list despite my silence. > > I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done > regarding to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who > have spent time and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw > is time to look forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do. > > I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I > have aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during > this period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of > votes in favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to > who is against, I think this disparity say much more about the > decision of list members to adopt the new text than if all the rules > was strictly followed or not. Also because we don't know if the 9 > votes against the charter amendment were made within the regular > voting period or during the extension period. > > I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the > voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right? > > Best, > > Magaly Pazello > > > > 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams > > > Danny and all, > > There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not > necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have > occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that > suspicion. > > So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't > ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Danny Younger > > >Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org , Ian > Peter > > >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > > > > >Ian, > > > >Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am > considering the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of > procedural irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help > guide my ultimate decision. > > > > >One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the > amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed > to pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as > of the pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers > then proceeded to put forth a series of justifications to extend the > vote in order to obtain the particular outcome that they themselves > preferred. > > > > >Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such > actions constitute an improper gaming of the process. > > > >Best regards, > >Danny Younger > > > >[...] > > > -------------- 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 cafonso.ca Tue Sep 29 07:03:51 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:03:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras In-Reply-To: <2CC1B666-B078-4E92-855E-AA46438742BB@ipjustice.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FCDE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925E431A-6541-482D-848D-548E3ACCC402@ltu.se> <202705b0909230657se357ce8u1d7b3e11a15a6b97@mail.gmail.com> <4ABA4BF9.1030904@cafonso.ca> <2CC1B666-B078-4E92-855E-AA46438742BB@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> Dear people, I think we need to mobilize ASAP in favor of RDS Honduras. Anyone who knows the work of the organization since its foundation in 1994 will have no doubt in supporting them against yet another arbitrary measure by the current Honduran dictatorship. RDS is a pioneer in social networking and Internet services in Central America (especially oriented to civil society networks). I have worked personally with them in 2002 in a Sustainable Development Network (SDN/RDS) evaluation for UNDP in 2002, and can testify to the high quality and relevance of their work in leveraging ICTs for human development in the country. For more information (mostly in Spanish), please visit http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ For general information on RDS-HN: http://rds.hn Above all, please mobilize your organizations to participate in active solidarity actions with RDS-HN. It is obvious a clear and urgent position from ICANN against this arbitrary seizure is needed. Below is the full statemente by RDS-HN in English. fraternal regards --c.a. ========================================================== LACTLD Statement on ccTLD. HN situation To the international community By this note, we would like to inform the international community about the current situation in the ccTLD .HN, which is managed by RDS-HN, associated member of LACTLD , organization that informs us about this situation. The current Honduran government has informed RDS-HN that it must hand over the ccTLD operation due to Article 79B of the Reglament of the Telecommunications Act (of the year 2002). This rule says that "CONATEL controls the regulation and administration of the domains and IP directions within the national territory. CONATEL will be able to take the necessary measures so that the administration of domains and IP addresses can be executed through from other public or private institutions, for which agreements will be signed and the corresponding regulations will be issued." Last Friday, and based in the above-mentioned article, national authorities arrived at the ccTLD. hn office stating: "Until now, CONATEL has not signed any agreement with any public or private entity. Therefore it is necessary to order the institution, which has been managing and delegating domains. HN, to suspend the management immediately, given that it develops outside the provisions of Article 79B of the Reglament of the Framework Law for Telecommunications Sector". In the same way, they order ccTLD .HN "1. To immediately suspend all activities related to registration and delegation of new domain names under the domain .HN, and 2. To hand a list of domains .HN and records, that the institution have been conferred, to CONATEL." The Red de Desarrollo Sostenible - RDS (Sustainable Development Network) http://www.rds.org.hn maintains the operation of ccTLD. hn since April 1993, date when this organization received this delegation and, in July 2006, signed an Accountability Framework with ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/hn/hn-icann-af-20jul06.pdf), which explicitly recognizes that relationship and work. Furthermore, RDS is also a leading civil society organization that facilitates connectivity to Honduras as well as provides various tools and services to the community of Honduras and Central America and, for this reason, RDS is being recognized as a pioneer in the region. The management and operation of the DNS follow internationally accepted and recognized processes, primarily based on RFC 1591 . Because of the stability importance of the Internet global system and ccTLD work, RDS is due to its local and international community on the Internet. In addition, we indicate that the action that tries to carry out CONATEL is against of the constitutional guarantees and the guarantees of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Therefore, it violates the relationship that has been conducted peacefully and technically efficient and is based on existing contractual agreements and relationships. LACTLD expresses its strong concern regarding the events that have unfolded in the request made by the Government of Honduras to take in a sudden and abrupt way the operation .HN due to the fact that it will be detrimental to the users of domain name system in Honduras which primarily require stability for the adequate access of Internet resources. LACTLD is committed with its partners and members, and primarily seeks to maintain the stability of the Domain Name System for the correct running of the Internet. We hope that the wisdom will prevail between two sides in order to solve this delicate situation. Sincerely, Council of LACTLD Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association http://www.lactld.org More Information: contacto at lactld.org, contacto at rds.org.hn More Information: http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ [1] ccTLD: country code top level domain [2] RDS-Hn: Red de Desarrollo Sostenible de Honduras (http://www.rds.org.hn) [3] LACTLD: Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association (http://www.lactld.org) [4] CONATEL: Telecomunication National Comission (http://www.conatel.gob.hn) [5] ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (http://www.icann.org) [6] RFC 1591: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.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 From avri at psg.com Tue Sep 29 07:51:23 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:51:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC membership In-Reply-To: <4AC1C18C.4040009@itforchange.net> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AC1C18C.4040009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <24295A33-6D12-453E-AE57-C97F8CE3FF81@psg.com> Hi, On 29 Sep 2009, at 04:13, Parminder wrote: > The membership issue of this group certainly needs to be sorted out. ... > > It doesnt matter if there are only 30-40 such members. They need to > feel a collective (sorry for using that word, Milton :) ) inner motivations for feeling responsible for the list a re probably irrelevant. one could be interested from the combined selfish interests of the individual. i am fine with collectives in principle. > responsibility for the caucus. At present it is too much of 'some > one else will do it' and coordinators are left with an impossible job. > > not to be be argumentative, but isn't that what this note does? > > I appeal to coordinators to take this issue up. Umm, why should the coordinators take it up. Not that they can't, but why should they. As I am sure you know, this would take a change to the charter. We now know that this can be done. One way allowed under the current charter is: A few people can self form to create a proposed set of amendments. The can recruit others (need 10 i think) to sign on with them to propose it to the IGC. and the coordinators can organize a discussion period and vote. (though this time I suggest the vote be schedule in advance for 4 weeks) There are other ways of course. But if you really think this aspect needs to be changed (I am not yet convinced) then you can organize and do it. I do not believe however, that a separate members list is currently acceptable within the current charter. Nor do I beleive it would make much of a difference. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 07:59:04 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:59:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras In-Reply-To: <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FCDE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925E431A-6541-482D-848D-548E3ACCC402@ltu.se> <202705b0909230657se357ce8u1d7b3e11a15a6b97@mail.gmail.com> <4ABA4BF9.1030904@cafonso.ca> <2CC1B666-B078-4E92-855E-AA46438742BB@ipjustice.org> <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > > > It is obvious a clear and urgent position from ICANN against this > arbitrary seizure is needed. > > That would be useful indeed. Even better if the GAC were to issue a statement condemning this attempted seizure. This is interesting timing coming the day before the end of the JPA. In any case, as you can see here: http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/hn.html the DNS servers aren't under the control of the honduran gov't, so they clearly haven't thought this through. Does this mean that all Local Internet Registries (ISPs with IP address allocations from LACNIC) will also be seized? it's a disturbing development indeed! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- 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 cafonso.ca Tue Sep 29 08:12:39 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:12:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FCDE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925E431A-6541-482D-848D-548E3ACCC402@ltu.se> <202705b0909230657se357ce8u1d7b3e11a15a6b97@mail.gmail.com> <4ABA4BF9.1030904@cafonso.ca> <2CC1B666-B078-4E92-855E-AA46438742BB@ipjustice.org> <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4AC1F9B7.4090604@cafonso.ca> Thanks for your thoughts, McTim. Indeed, a GAC statement would be fundamental. You are right, the servers are outside of the country, but the government could go really far if ICANN does not take a stand. I am mostly worried about RDS-HN itself -- its work goes well beyond managing the .hn domain, and they are in an extremely vulnerable situation. [] fraterno --c.a. McTim wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> > > >> It is obvious a clear and urgent position from ICANN against this >> arbitrary seizure is needed. >> >> > That would be useful indeed. > > Even better if the GAC were to issue a statement condemning this attempted > seizure. > > This is interesting timing coming the day before the end of the JPA. > > In any case, as you can see here: > http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/hn.html the DNS servers aren't under > the control of the honduran gov't, so they clearly haven't thought this > through. > > Does this mean that all Local Internet Registries (ISPs with IP address > allocations from LACNIC) will also be seized? > > it's a disturbing development indeed! > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Sep 29 10:09:28 2009 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:09:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras In-Reply-To: <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FCDE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925E431A-6541-482D-848D-548E3ACCC402@ltu.se> <202705b0909230657se357ce8u1d7b3e11a15a6b97@mail.gmail.com> <4ABA4BF9.1030904@cafonso.ca> <2CC1B666-B078-4E92-855E-AA46438742BB@ipjustice.org> <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <61a136f40909290709t3edad1a2nb0bbcea77503b219@mail.gmail.com> We must condemn in the strongest possible terms this usurpation by what amounts to an illegal Honduran Government. ICANN must now step up to the plate and let them know there are rules that must be adhered to in these transactions. I hope that alternate DNS servers hosted outside the country so this move can be effectively neutralized. Carlton Samuels On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I think we need to mobilize ASAP in favor of RDS Honduras. Anyone who > knows the work of the organization since its foundation in 1994 will > have no doubt in supporting them against yet another arbitrary measure > by the current Honduran dictatorship. > > RDS is a pioneer in social networking and Internet services in Central > America (especially oriented to civil society networks). I have worked > personally with them in 2002 in a Sustainable Development Network > (SDN/RDS) evaluation for UNDP in 2002, and can testify to the high > quality and relevance of their work in leveraging ICTs for human > development in the country. > > For more information (mostly in Spanish), please visit > http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ > > For general information on RDS-HN: http://rds.hn > > Above all, please mobilize your organizations to participate in active > solidarity actions with RDS-HN. > > It is obvious a clear and urgent position from ICANN against this > arbitrary seizure is needed. > > Below is the full statemente by RDS-HN in English. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ========================================================== > LACTLD Statement on ccTLD. HN situation > > To the international community > > By this note, we would like to inform the international community about > the current situation in the ccTLD .HN, which is managed by RDS-HN, > associated member of LACTLD , organization that informs us about this > situation. > > The current Honduran government has informed RDS-HN that it must hand > over the ccTLD operation due to Article 79B of the Reglament of the > Telecommunications Act (of the year 2002). This rule says that "CONATEL > controls the regulation and administration of the domains and IP > directions within the national territory. CONATEL will be able to take > the necessary measures so that the administration of domains and IP > addresses can be executed through from other public or private > institutions, for which agreements will be signed and the corresponding > regulations will be issued." > > Last Friday, and based in the above-mentioned article, national > authorities arrived at the ccTLD. hn office stating: "Until now, CONATEL > has not signed any agreement with any public or private entity. > Therefore it is necessary to order the institution, which has been > managing and delegating domains. HN, to suspend the management > immediately, given that it develops outside the provisions of Article > 79B of the Reglament of the Framework Law for Telecommunications > Sector". In the same way, they order ccTLD .HN "1. To immediately > suspend all activities related to registration and delegation of new > domain names under the domain .HN, and 2. To hand a list of domains .HN > and records, that the institution have been conferred, to CONATEL." > > The Red de Desarrollo Sostenible - RDS (Sustainable Development Network) > http://www.rds.org.hn maintains the operation of ccTLD. hn since April > 1993, date when this organization received this delegation and, in July > 2006, signed an Accountability Framework with ICANN > (http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/hn/hn-icann-af-20jul06.pdf), which > explicitly recognizes that relationship and work. Furthermore, RDS is > also a leading civil society organization that facilitates connectivity > to Honduras as well as provides various tools and services to the > community of Honduras and Central America and, for this reason, RDS is > being recognized as a pioneer in the region. > > The management and operation of the DNS follow internationally accepted > and recognized processes, primarily based on RFC 1591 . Because of the > stability importance of the Internet global system and ccTLD work, RDS > is due to its local and international community on the Internet. > > In addition, we indicate that the action that tries to carry out CONATEL > is against of the constitutional guarantees and the guarantees of the > Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Therefore, it violates the relationship > that has been conducted peacefully and technically efficient and is > based on existing contractual agreements and relationships. > > LACTLD expresses its strong concern regarding the events that have > unfolded in the request made by the Government of Honduras to take in a > sudden and abrupt way the operation .HN due to the fact that it will be > detrimental to the users of domain name system in Honduras which > primarily require stability for the adequate access of Internet resources. > > LACTLD is committed with its partners and members, and primarily seeks > to maintain the stability of the Domain Name System for the correct > running of the Internet. We hope that the wisdom will prevail between > two sides in order to solve this delicate situation. > > Sincerely, > > Council of LACTLD > Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association > http://www.lactld.org > > More Information: contacto at lactld.org, contacto at rds.org.hn > More Information: http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ > > [1] ccTLD: country code top level domain > [2] RDS-Hn: Red de Desarrollo Sostenible de Honduras ( > http://www.rds.org.hn) > [3] LACTLD: Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association > (http://www.lactld.org) > [4] CONATEL: Telecomunication National Comission ( > http://www.conatel.gob.hn) > [5] ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (http://www.icann.org) > [6] RFC 1591: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.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 > -------------- 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 Tue Sep 29 11:24:38 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:24:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI Net Neutrality References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FCDE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925E431A-6541-482D-848D-548E3ACCC402@ltu.se> <202705b0909230657se357ce8u1d7b3e11a15a6b97@mail.gmail.com> <4ABA4BF9.1030904@cafonso.ca> <2CC1B666-B078-4E92-855E-AA46438742BB@ipjustice.org> <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> <61a136f40909290709t3edad1a2nb0bbcea77503b219@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871957A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/09/senators_plan_bill_to_advance.html?wpisrc=newsletter w ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Sep 29 12:49:54 2009 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:49:54 -0300 Subject: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras In-Reply-To: <61a136f40909290709t3edad1a2nb0bbcea77503b219@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FCDE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925E431A-6541-482D-848D-548E3ACCC402@ltu.se> <202705b0909230657se357ce8u1d7b3e11a15a6b97@mail.gmail.com> <4ABA4BF9.1030904@cafonso.ca> <2CC1B666-B078-4E92-855E-AA46438742BB@ipjustice.org> <4AC1E997.5090300@cafonso.ca> <61a136f40909290709t3edad1a2nb0bbcea77503b219@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ac01ca4124$e54ae7c0$afe0b740$@com.br> Even I am strongly opposed to have server out of country ( not the mirror of course) this time was providential. 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: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras We must condemn in the strongest possible terms this usurpation by what amounts to an illegal Honduran Government. ICANN must now step up to the plate and let them know there are rules that must be adhered to in these transactions. I hope that alternate DNS servers hosted outside the country so this move can be effectively neutralized. Carlton Samuels On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Dear people, I think we need to mobilize ASAP in favor of RDS Honduras. Anyone who knows the work of the organization since its foundation in 1994 will have no doubt in supporting them against yet another arbitrary measure by the current Honduran dictatorship. RDS is a pioneer in social networking and Internet services in Central America (especially oriented to civil society networks). I have worked personally with them in 2002 in a Sustainable Development Network (SDN/RDS) evaluation for UNDP in 2002, and can testify to the high quality and relevance of their work in leveraging ICTs for human development in the country. For more information (mostly in Spanish), please visit http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ For general information on RDS-HN: http://rds.hn Above all, please mobilize your organizations to participate in active solidarity actions with RDS-HN. It is obvious a clear and urgent position from ICANN against this arbitrary seizure is needed. Below is the full statemente by RDS-HN in English. fraternal regards --c.a. ========================================================== LACTLD Statement on ccTLD. HN situation To the international community By this note, we would like to inform the international community about the current situation in the ccTLD .HN, which is managed by RDS-HN, associated member of LACTLD , organization that informs us about this situation. The current Honduran government has informed RDS-HN that it must hand over the ccTLD operation due to Article 79B of the Reglament of the Telecommunications Act (of the year 2002). This rule says that "CONATEL controls the regulation and administration of the domains and IP directions within the national territory. CONATEL will be able to take the necessary measures so that the administration of domains and IP addresses can be executed through from other public or private institutions, for which agreements will be signed and the corresponding regulations will be issued." Last Friday, and based in the above-mentioned article, national authorities arrived at the ccTLD. hn office stating: "Until now, CONATEL has not signed any agreement with any public or private entity. Therefore it is necessary to order the institution, which has been managing and delegating domains. HN, to suspend the management immediately, given that it develops outside the provisions of Article 79B of the Reglament of the Framework Law for Telecommunications Sector". In the same way, they order ccTLD .HN "1. To immediately suspend all activities related to registration and delegation of new domain names under the domain .HN, and 2. To hand a list of domains .HN and records, that the institution have been conferred, to CONATEL." The Red de Desarrollo Sostenible - RDS (Sustainable Development Network) http://www.rds.org.hn maintains the operation of ccTLD. hn since April 1993, date when this organization received this delegation and, in July 2006, signed an Accountability Framework with ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/hn/hn-icann-af-20jul06.pdf), which explicitly recognizes that relationship and work. Furthermore, RDS is also a leading civil society organization that facilitates connectivity to Honduras as well as provides various tools and services to the community of Honduras and Central America and, for this reason, RDS is being recognized as a pioneer in the region. The management and operation of the DNS follow internationally accepted and recognized processes, primarily based on RFC 1591 . Because of the stability importance of the Internet global system and ccTLD work, RDS is due to its local and international community on the Internet. In addition, we indicate that the action that tries to carry out CONATEL is against of the constitutional guarantees and the guarantees of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Therefore, it violates the relationship that has been conducted peacefully and technically efficient and is based on existing contractual agreements and relationships. LACTLD expresses its strong concern regarding the events that have unfolded in the request made by the Government of Honduras to take in a sudden and abrupt way the operation .HN due to the fact that it will be detrimental to the users of domain name system in Honduras which primarily require stability for the adequate access of Internet resources. LACTLD is committed with its partners and members, and primarily seeks to maintain the stability of the Domain Name System for the correct running of the Internet. We hope that the wisdom will prevail between two sides in order to solve this delicate situation. Sincerely, Council of LACTLD Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association http://www.lactld.org More Information: contacto at lactld.org, contacto at rds.org.hn More Information: http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ [1] ccTLD: country code top level domain [2] RDS-Hn: Red de Desarrollo Sostenible de Honduras (http://www.rds.org.hn) [3] LACTLD: Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association (http://www.lactld.org) [4] CONATEL: Telecomunication National Comission (http://www.conatel.gob.hn) [5] ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (http://www.icann.org) [6] RFC 1591: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.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 -------------- 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 Sep 29 13:34:00 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:34:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> If a jurisdiction wants to raise taxes, in numerous states they have a state law to deal with that requires a certain level of turnout before the tax becomes effective. Let's imagine a hypothetical rule of this common class requires that 2/3 of voters participate for the tax to go into effect. Of course, such turnout requirements apply no matter what the breakdown of those voters' votes may be, even if 99% to 1%. As polls approach closing at 8pm, may the pollworkers at this tax election extend polling hours in furtherance of obtaining a valid election, and "not wasting time" or, frankly, any other reason? Absolutely no way. It's to the point of being absurd to suggest that those running the election could extend the election time, FOR THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF ELECTION. Only an independent judge could even theoretically make such a decision, and if a judge even considered an emergency motion on this issue, the judge would hold this to a very high standard of showing an act of God like a blizzard or hurricane or something similar disrupted the polls as a whole, or huge classes of voters, through no fault or choice of their own. Given that we have a 2/3 rule operating here much like minimum turnout requirements for tax elections, I have a difficult time understanding why Milton Mueller does "not have a problem" with the election procedure, even though he voted against the amendment, and the amendment is stated to have passed after the extension. Does anyone see what the issue is here? Or do I need to post again because I haven't been clear enough? (FWIW, my desire simply "to be heard" and understood far exceeds my desire to "win" some potential debate. Perhaps I've missed the countervailing principles or facts here, but I don't think I'm wrong in pointing to this important issue of the special context that is created when an election, like the charter amendment election, triggers a rule regarding minimum turnout requirements for validity. To ignore this issue as if it didn't exist would create more troubling questions than the issue itself, so no matter what the outcome may be, I hope there develops some communication, or process, for dealing with it. Being forced to deal with it pursuant to an appeal is not the only posture in which this issues ought to be addressed and dealt with.) Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/29/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the procedure > used. > The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership portion > who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this attracts 200 people > who call themselves "members" at point A and after two years 35% of them > lose interest and stop participating, then no charter amendments would ever > be possible. If the vote were a close one it would be different, of course. > As it is, all that happened was that the vote extension allowed the will of > an overwhelming majority to be executed. > > ________________________________ > From: Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > > Dear list, > after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been > following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite > my silence. > > I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding > to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time > and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look > forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do. > > I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have > aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this > period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in > favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, > I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to > adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also > because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made > within the regular voting period or during the extension period. > > I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the > voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right? > > Best, > > Magaly Pazello > > > > 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams > > > Danny and all, > > There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not > necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have > occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that > suspicion. > > So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't > ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Danny Younger > >>Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter >> > >>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> >>Ian, >> >>Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering >> the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural >> irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my >> ultimate decision. >> >>One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the >> amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to >> pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the >> pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded >> to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to >> obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. >> >>Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions >> constitute an improper gaming of the process. >> >>Best regards, >>Danny Younger >> >>[...] > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 29 13:59:43 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:59:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <702A47D3-620B-47E4-8391-2E8DCD4C8181@acm.org> On 29 Sep 2009, at 13:34, Paul Lehto wrote: > (FWIW, my desire simply "to be heard" and understood far exceeds my > desire to "win" some potential debate. Often I have found that the only way to understand someone is to agree with them.* I am not saying that is the case here. Just a lesson that sticks in the front of my mind. I for one, do think I understand your argument. And I think I still disagree with it in relation to the IGC. We have our rules, and our rules do not prohibit it. No matter what other rules in other places may say. No matter what political theory of one ilk or the other may say. No matter what the Theory of Pure Law or Jurisprudence may have to say about it. And no matter what the Platonic Ideal of Governance might be. Our rules give the coordinator's leeway to make their decisions based on the guidelines and constraints in the charter and on what they feel is in the best interests of the community. If 4 members seriously don't like any decision, they can appeal it. If 4 members really really don't like the coordinators or see a pattern of abuse they can appeal for a recall vote. And if we are ok with it or can at least live with it, we let it go and move on, even if we aren't 100% happy. a. * Had a philosophy professor like that in grad school. Since i did not agree with him, i obviously did not fully understand and got a B instead of an A. The course was on Hume, which was ironic really since Hume was charged with being a heretic and, though acquitted, never quite understood in his time. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Tue Sep 29 14:00:15 2009 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (mail at christopherwilkinson.eu) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:00:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras Message-ID: <380-22009922918015535@M2W006.mail2web.com> I agree with Vanda and Carlton about this. Soy de acuerdo con Vanda y Carlton en esto. CW ----------------------- On 29 Sep 2009, at 18:49, Vanda Scartezini wrote: Even I am strongly opposed to have server out of country ( not the mirror of course) this time was providential. 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: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras We must condemn in the strongest possible terms this usurpation by what amounts to an illegal Honduran Government. ICANN must now step up to the plate and let them know there are rules that must be adhered to in these transactions. I hope that alternate DNS servers hosted outside the country so this move can be effectively neutralized. Carlton Samuels On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Dear people, I think we need to mobilize ASAP in favor of RDS Honduras. Anyone who knows the work of the organization since its foundation in 1994 will have no doubt in supporting them against yet another arbitrary measure by the current Honduran dictatorship. RDS is a pioneer in social networking and Internet services in Central America (especially oriented to civil society networks). I have worked personally with them in 2002 in a Sustainable Development Network (SDN/RDS) evaluation for UNDP in 2002, and can testify to the high quality and relevance of their work in leveraging ICTs for human development in the country. For more information (mostly in Spanish), please visit http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ For general information on RDS-HN: http://rds.hn Above all, please mobilize your organizations to participate in active solidarity actions with RDS-HN. It is obvious a clear and urgent position from ICANN against this arbitrary seizure is needed. Below is the full statemente by RDS-HN in English. fraternal regards --c.a. ========================================================== LACTLD Statement on ccTLD. HN situation To the international community By this note, we would like to inform the international community about the current situation in the ccTLD .HN, which is managed by RDS-HN, associated member of LACTLD , organization that informs us about this situation. The current Honduran government has informed RDS-HN that it must hand over the ccTLD operation due to Article 79B of the Reglament of the Telecommunications Act (of the year 2002). This rule says that "CONATEL controls the regulation and administration of the domains and IP directions within the national territory. CONATEL will be able to take the necessary measures so that the administration of domains and IP addresses can be executed through from other public or private institutions, for which agreements will be signed and the corresponding regulations will be issued." Last Friday, and based in the above-mentioned article, national authorities arrived at the ccTLD. hn office stating: "Until now, CONATEL has not signed any agreement with any public or private entity. Therefore it is necessary to order the institution, which has been managing and delegating domains. HN, to suspend the management immediately, given that it develops outside the provisions of Article 79B of the Reglament of the Framework Law for Telecommunications Sector". In the same way, they order ccTLD .HN "1. To immediately suspend all activities related to registration and delegation of new domain names under the domain .HN, and 2. To hand a list of domains .HN and records, that the institution have been conferred, to CONATEL." The Red de Desarrollo Sostenible - RDS (Sustainable Development Network) http://www.rds.org.hn maintains the operation of ccTLD. hn since April 1993, date when this organization received this delegation and, in July 2006, signed an Accountability Framework with ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/hn/hn-icann-af-20jul06.pdf), which explicitly recognizes that relationship and work. Furthermore, RDS is also a leading civil society organization that facilitates connectivity to Honduras as well as provides various tools and services to the community of Honduras and Central America and, for this reason, RDS is being recognized as a pioneer in the region. The management and operation of the DNS follow internationally accepted and recognized processes, primarily based on RFC 1591 . Because of the stability importance of the Internet global system and ccTLD work, RDS is due to its local and international community on the Internet. In addition, we indicate that the action that tries to carry out CONATEL is against of the constitutional guarantees and the guarantees of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Therefore, it violates the relationship that has been conducted peacefully and technically efficient and is based on existing contractual agreements and relationships. LACTLD expresses its strong concern regarding the events that have unfolded in the request made by the Government of Honduras to take in a sudden and abrupt way the operation .HN due to the fact that it will be detrimental to the users of domain name system in Honduras which primarily require stability for the adequate access of Internet resources. LACTLD is committed with its partners and members, and primarily seeks to maintain the stability of the Domain Name System for the correct running of the Internet. We hope that the wisdom will prevail between two sides in order to solve this delicate situation. Sincerely, Council of LACTLD Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association http://www.lactld.org More Information: contacto at lactld.org, contacto at rds.org.hn More Information: http://solidaridadrdshn.blogspot.com/ [1] ccTLD: country code top level domain [2] RDS-Hn: Red de Desarrollo Sostenible de Honduras (http://www.rds.org.hn) [3] LACTLD: Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association (http://www.lactld.org) [4] CONATEL: Telecomunication National Comission (http://www.conatel.gob.hn) [5] ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (http://www.icann.org) [6] RFC 1591: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 29 14:49:08 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:49:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <702A47D3-620B-47E4-8391-2E8DCD4C8181@acm.org> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> <702A47D3-620B-47E4-8391-2E8DCD4C8181@acm.org> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909291149m7f6e3284m38e024fd4554855a@mail.gmail.com> You'll get an "A" from me, rather than a "B" as you describe, by dealing with the following, which presupposes you are correct in stating, as I read your reply below, that law, principles of democracy, political theory, and all other jurisdictions and how they handle it are irrelevant because administrators here, in this specific context, have "leeway" to handle things "based on" what you termed "the best interests of the community" and "on the guidelines and constraints of the charter." I would add, though it's not entirely necessary to my response here, that the "rule" of Reason is something that applies and inheres in your phrase "based on" and, in any event, is a "rule" of universal application -- the announced departure from which defines arbitrary and capricious action. "Arbitrary and capricious" is admittedly not something that can be fairly divined from your rule of decision, namely the "leeway" to act "based on...best interests...[and] the guidelines and constraints of the charter." Thus, unless otherwise advised, I'll assume its applicability here as well. My argument (at its core but not also at the margins, at which margins I did indeed argue by analogy from election law and the theory of democracy, an area I've published in) is that the "constraints of the charter", the very ones you say rulings must be "based on" prohibit the very kind of "leeway" taken here. Because, if the "leeway" taken is allowed either to undermine, or to negate, the "constraints of the charter," then those constraints in the charter aren't actually "constraints" at all, but instead all we're left with is "leeway" which is inconsistent with "constraint." This means that, even under the view that throws out all election law & principles of democracy as irrelevant in favor of leeway in furtherance of the constraints of the charter, the leeway that would normally exist simply doesn't exist under this specific factual context, even though it would exist under many other factual contexts in the normal course of events. I'll admit that if you argue that 'leeway' also exists to interpret the constraints of the charter, then you'd be out of the logical box I outline above, but then I'd say you've also escaped all meaningful "constraints" of the charter as well, leaving you free from all rules, principles, theories or laws of every kind, including but not limited to the charter. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2009, at 13:34, Paul Lehto wrote: > >> (FWIW, my desire simply "to be heard" and understood far exceeds my >> desire to "win" some potential debate. > > > Often I have found that the only way to understand someone is to agree > with them.* > I am not saying that is the case here. Just a lesson that sticks in > the front of my mind. > > I for one, do think I understand your argument. > And I think I still disagree with it in relation to the IGC. > > We have our rules, and our rules do not prohibit it. > No matter what other rules in other places may say. > No matter what political theory of one ilk or the other may say. > No matter what the Theory of Pure Law or Jurisprudence may have to say > about it. > And no matter what the Platonic Ideal of Governance might be. > > Our rules give the coordinator's leeway to make their decisions based > on the guidelines > and constraints in the charter and on what they feel is in the best > interests of the community. > > If 4 members seriously don't like any decision, they can appeal it. > If 4 members really really don't like the coordinators or see a > pattern of abuse they can appeal for a recall vote. > > And if we are ok with it or can at least live with it, we let it go > and move on, even if we aren't 100% happy. > > > a. > > * Had a philosophy professor like that in grad school. Since i did > not agree with him, i obviously did not fully understand and got a B > instead of an A. The course was on Hume, which was ironic really > since Hume was charged with being a heretic and, though acquitted, > never quite understood in his time. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 29 15:40:36 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:40:36 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <30012781.1254253236997.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Paul and all, You again beat me to the punch. >:) Well done though. It's clear that the Charter is for "Show" only IF "Leeway" can overide the principals there within. Ergo no official vote has effectively taken place, rather an exercise or "Poll" was taken in the name of a vote. As such than, the "Poll" cannot ligitimately be given credance IF again "Leeway" is so exercised or fully recognized accordingly. -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Lehto >Sent: Sep 29, 2009 1:49 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >You'll get an "A" from me, rather than a "B" as you describe, by >dealing with the following, which presupposes you are correct in >stating, as I read your reply below, that law, principles of >democracy, political theory, and all other jurisdictions and how they >handle it are irrelevant because administrators here, in this specific >context, have "leeway" to handle things "based on" what you termed >"the best interests of the community" and "on the guidelines and >constraints of the charter." > >I would add, though it's not entirely necessary to my response here, >that the "rule" of Reason is something that applies and inheres in >your phrase "based on" and, in any event, is a "rule" of universal >application -- the announced departure from which defines arbitrary >and capricious action. "Arbitrary and capricious" is admittedly not >something that can be fairly divined from your rule of decision, >namely the "leeway" to act "based on...best interests...[and] the >guidelines and constraints of the charter." Thus, unless otherwise >advised, I'll assume its applicability here as well. > >My argument (at its core but not also at the margins, at which margins >I did indeed argue by analogy from election law and the theory of >democracy, an area I've published in) is that the "constraints of the >charter", the very ones you say rulings must be "based on" prohibit >the very kind of "leeway" taken here. > >Because, if the "leeway" taken is allowed either to undermine, or to >negate, the "constraints of the charter," then those constraints in >the charter aren't actually "constraints" at all, but instead all >we're left with is "leeway" which is inconsistent with "constraint." > >This means that, even under the view that throws out all election law >& principles of democracy as irrelevant in favor of leeway in >furtherance of the constraints of the charter, the leeway that would >normally exist simply doesn't exist under this specific factual >context, even though it would exist under many other factual contexts >in the normal course of events. > >I'll admit that if you argue that 'leeway' also exists to interpret >the constraints of the charter, then you'd be out of the logical box I >outline above, but then I'd say you've also escaped all meaningful >"constraints" of the charter as well, leaving you free from all rules, >principles, theories or laws of every kind, including but not limited >to the charter. > >Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > >On 9/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 29 Sep 2009, at 13:34, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >>> (FWIW, my desire simply "to be heard" and understood far exceeds my >>> desire to "win" some potential debate. >> >> >> Often I have found that the only way to understand someone is to agree >> with them.* >> I am not saying that is the case here. Just a lesson that sticks in >> the front of my mind. >> >> I for one, do think I understand your argument. >> And I think I still disagree with it in relation to the IGC. >> >> We have our rules, and our rules do not prohibit it. >> No matter what other rules in other places may say. >> No matter what political theory of one ilk or the other may say. >> No matter what the Theory of Pure Law or Jurisprudence may have to say >> about it. >> And no matter what the Platonic Ideal of Governance might be. >> >> Our rules give the coordinator's leeway to make their decisions based >> on the guidelines >> and constraints in the charter and on what they feel is in the best >> interests of the community. >> >> If 4 members seriously don't like any decision, they can appeal it. >> If 4 members really really don't like the coordinators or see a >> pattern of abuse they can appeal for a recall vote. >> >> And if we are ok with it or can at least live with it, we let it go >> and move on, even if we aren't 100% happy. >> >> >> a. >> >> * Had a philosophy professor like that in grad school. Since i did >> not agree with him, i obviously did not fully understand and got a B >> instead of an A. The course was on Hume, which was ironic really >> since Hume was charged with being a heretic and, though acquitted, >> never quite understood in his time. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 >906-204-4026 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 avri at acm.org Tue Sep 29 15:45:29 2009 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:45:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909291149m7f6e3284m38e024fd4554855a@mail.gmail.com> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> <702A47D3-620B-47E4-8391-2E8DCD4C8181@acm.org> <76f819dd0909291149m7f6e3284m38e024fd4554855a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 29 Sep 2009, at 14:49, Paul Lehto wrote: > My argument (at its core but not also at the margins, at which margins > I did indeed argue by analogy from election law and the theory of > democracy, an area I've published in) is that the "constraints of the > charter", the very ones you say rulings must be "based on" prohibit > the very kind of "leeway" taken here. Can you quote where in he charter it says that the coordinators do not have the right and leeway to set votes for the period they wish or to extend the ballot time as they see fit? If not, I contend that the rest of argument built on this core, does not stand. As far as I can tell all it says in the charter is: > Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the > appeals process. It was, and it is. Of course this is subject to amendment and more stringent and specific rules can be added subject to a 2/3 approval of the members I think it is important to remember that organizations should be run according to their bylaws and charters as long as those are not contravened by actual applicable law. Principles not specifically called out in the charter cannot trump the privileges set out in that charter, no matter how zippy wow* they appear. I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable law that negates the actions taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within the limits of the charter. a. dilettante philosopher * by zippy wow, i mean, of course, those fundamental truths that everyone sees and accepts as self evident etcetera etcetera ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 15:51:07 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:51:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> <702A47D3-620B-47E4-8391-2E8DCD4C8181@acm.org> <76f819dd0909291149m7f6e3284m38e024fd4554855a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable law > that negates the actions > taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within the > limits of the charter. > > +1 If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot. Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need to be further specified. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- 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 Tue Sep 29 16:00:33 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:00:33 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Solidarity with RDS Honduras Message-ID: <12322901.1254254433247.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.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 Sep 29 16:01:52 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:01:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <14349557.1254254512695.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 16:07:46 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:07:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> <702A47D3-620B-47E4-8391-2E8DCD4C8181@acm.org> <76f819dd0909291149m7f6e3284m38e024fd4554855a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909291307l561efbc8x34deb4da1bbf230d@mail.gmail.com> The sweeping claim, and the fatal weakness, of the claim being made is that the lack of an express prohibition leaves administrators free to do as they please. If this were really the case, then there's no requirement for ANY of the following, because they can't be found (I'll bet) in the charter: 1. The right to have the ballots PROPERLY counted, or counted at all. (Perhaps only "results" need to be announced per the charter, but not the results of counts, and only the right to CAST a vote is mentioned, or perhaps even that is omitted.) 2. The right not to have ballots made up and added to the ballot box fraudulently. 3. The right not to have a fake total, other than the real total, announced for a given election. It's only a matter of time, even if the above examples aren't perfect, before the absolute absurdity of the position that a positive command in black and white must exist before a restriction on administrative freedom exists is shown. Many more examples can readily be imagined, and that's fair, because literally you're saying admininstrators can do anything imaginable unless and until there's SPECIFIC LANGUAGE DISALLOWING it. And that seems reasonable at quick glance, but is in reality utterly absurd, and really quite a dangerous principle to follow in the long run. What you dismiss as the "zippy wow" -- the "self-evident" principles that are in most countries claiming to be free nowhere to be found in their constitution or written laws, like the right to have one's vote actually COUNTED in addition to the "right to vote" or cast a vote, the right to travel within a country, an adult's right to wear different clothes, the right to procreate, the right not to be prohibited from all employment by law, the right to be free from arbitrary and capricious action, etc. The list goes on and on and includes the majority of the specific, on the ground rights most people hold dear. The very crux of your claim is that of freedom for what amounts to the government here -- the right of administrators to "leeway" unless very specifically and expressly prohibited from doing something specific. Now, you seemed to be saying that political theory was out the window here but you are stating a cognizable political theory in claiming leeway for governments unless they are specifically constrained by a detailed restriction (and to heck with "principles" and "zippy wow" stuff). So as not to inflame the discussion, I'll simply say that the theory of governance is not that of republics nor is it of democracies. That's ok with me under freedom of thought and speech, but (again!) a principle comes to mind, that of calling a spade a spade in the interest of clear communication. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/29/09, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 29 Sep 2009, at 14:49, Paul Lehto wrote: > >> My argument (at its core but not also at the margins, at which margins >> I did indeed argue by analogy from election law and the theory of >> democracy, an area I've published in) is that the "constraints of the >> charter", the very ones you say rulings must be "based on" prohibit >> the very kind of "leeway" taken here. > > > Can you quote where in he charter it says that > the coordinators do not have the right and leeway to set votes for the > period they wish or to extend the ballot time as they see fit? > > If not, I contend that the rest of argument built on this core, does > not stand. > > As far as I can tell all it says in the charter is: > >> Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the >> appeals process. > > It was, and it is. > > Of course this is subject to amendment and more stringent and > specific rules can be > added subject to a 2/3 approval of the members > > I think it is important to remember that organizations should be run > according to their bylaws > and charters as long as those are not contravened by actual applicable > law. Principles not > specifically called out in the charter cannot trump the privileges set > out in that charter, no matter > how zippy wow* they appear. > > I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable > law that negates the actions > taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within > the limits of the charter. > > a. > dilettante philosopher > > > * by zippy wow, i mean, of course, those fundamental truths that > everyone sees and accepts as > self evident etcetera etcetera > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 29 16:12:46 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:12:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd0909291034q1a7b5c9by4626f9dc0a8c9698@mail.gmail.com> <702A47D3-620B-47E4-8391-2E8DCD4C8181@acm.org> <76f819dd0909291149m7f6e3284m38e024fd4554855a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909291312g3111687cl660fcc3f4f371787@mail.gmail.com> I'd be happy to draft a charter amendment if one were desired, but without the stipulation that the principles of reason and construction of language apply with force, literally anything I would draft, no matter how clear, would be a waste of time and utterly ineffective in binding the freedom of administrators (the point of such election provisions). Also, in this specific case, no further rules are needed in the charter to resolve the question, because the 2/3 rule implies that the 2/3 must exist in a normal election day time period and not over a week, month, or year. If the above case is not sufficiently clear in its prohibition of extensions for purposes or effect of meeting the 2/3 rule, then no amount of drafting, no matter how precise, will be sufficient to tie the hands of any person of even average intelligence who is committed to getting around the words and told he's got the "leeway" to do so. And I consider all here quite above average in intelligence. So, on another subject, I'd be happy to draft an amendment, but on this one it's hopeless. On 9/29/09, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable law >> that negates the actions >> taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within the >> limits of the charter. >> >> > +1 > > If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot. > > Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need to > be further specified. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 29 16:15:24 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:15:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment Message-ID: <4659767.1254255324605.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Ian and all, Paul and I filed our appeal withing the 72 hour time period, so why are you saying the appeals period is now closed? Please advise. -----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter >Sent: Sep 28, 2009 4:53 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Paul Lehto >Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment vote > >Paul, > >I think a number of the points you make are very valid, and indeed it would >help if these and other matters were clarified in the IGC Charter (can be >read at www.igcaucus.org). I would really encourage you to apply your >knowledge and skills to a working group to amend the charter and get rid of >some of the anomalies that lead to less than perfect procedures here, and >also to endless procedural discussions. That could make efforts in the >future both easier to conduct and also less contentious. > >But as regards the comparison you make - there are of course a number of >differences between US elections and IGC charter amendments, in scale, body >of law, jurisdiction, and form. Substantial differences and I am sure you >acknowledge that. > >Coming back to the current situation. While acknowledging a less than >perfect process, it is not the coordinators intention to conduct another >ballot, unless of course we are so directed by a successful appeal. The >current Appeals Team selected in 2009 is Jeanette Hofmann (Europe), Adam >Peake (Asia), Carlos Afonso (LAC), Ken Lohento (Africa) and Fouad Bajwa (Mid >East/South Asia). If anyone is to mount an appeal they should contact the >appeals team members directly and advise them. The period for appeals has >officially closed, but if the coordinators are contacted by the appeals team >to advise that a late appeal has been accepted and an appeals process is >underway, we will of course allow that to proceed. > > > >Ian Peter > > > > >On 29/09/09 3:50 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: > >> I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in >> the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, >> but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of >> facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at >> least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an >> explanation at least: >> >> 1. Elections are PURE procedure. >> >> 2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure >> renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least >> renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election >> irregularities." >> >> 3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body >> is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, >> substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a >> quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present >> for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights >> therein. >> >> 4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such >> persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed >> to complete the voting process. >> >> 5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of >> a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, >> or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of >> showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may >> rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for >> the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result >> intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal >> opportunity to vote. >> >> 6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the >> sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a >> vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, >> even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action >> against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional >> rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the >> most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they >> were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote >> suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in >> achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away >> from the polls. >> >> 7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I >> cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the >> opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election >> principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The >> parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the >> election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, >> and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various >> reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate >> more than others, in most circumstances. >> >> For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding >> the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the >> persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause >> they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without >> going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested >> parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules >> above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be >> grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds >> for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule >> requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 >> requirement FAIL. >> >> Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause >> charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can >> be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a >> claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an >> end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the >> 2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way >> to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get >> around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the >> case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were >> achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole >> purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in >> a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement >> for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended >> unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn >> out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. >> >> A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of >> ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense >> enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a >> proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't >> entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to >> those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against >> the amendment is simply not to vote at all. >> >> Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the >> regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order >> to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first >> place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or >> work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, >> which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the >> amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved >> and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus >> and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose >> of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the >> requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is >> a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself >> could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would >> require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. >> >> In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or >> the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like >> voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in >> combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under >> normal election law. >> >> That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law >> or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure >> might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal >> principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not >> as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of >> replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it >> was fairly constituted and understood the law. >> >> For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of >> political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally >> applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was >> no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes >> tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT >> for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, >> particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted >> so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of >> proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines >> the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy >> taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core >> purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every >> election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it >> would be a much closer case. >> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> >> PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment >> process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a >> firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had >> voted. >> On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Dear IGC >>> >>> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >>> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >>> amending the IGC charter. >>> >>> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >>> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >>> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >>> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >>> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >>> >>> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >>> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >>> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >>> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >>> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >>> >>> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >>> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >>> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >>> >>> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >>> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >>> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >>> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >>> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >>> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is >>> the responsibility of the coordinators). >>> >>> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >>> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >>> >>>> From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >>> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >>> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >>> >>> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather >>> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >>> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >>> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >>> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >>> of directors. >>> >>> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >>> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >>> >>> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >>> law in California (where APC is registered). >>> >>> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >>> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >>> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council). >>> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >>> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >>> >>> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and >>> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >>> and who are located in just about all timezones. >>> >>> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >>> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >>> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >>> be submitted electronically. >>> >>> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >>> don't use voting very often. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 avri at psg.com Tue Sep 29 16:22:04 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:22:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment In-Reply-To: <4659767.1254255324605.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <4659767.1254255324605.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7824C898-EF07-415B-A90F-EADC8BF0C90B@psg.com> On 29 Sep 2009, at 16:15, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Ian and all, > > Paul and I filed our appeal withing the 72 hour time period, so > why are you saying the appeals period is now closed? Please advise. It takes 4 members to activate an appeal. from consulting the members list, I count 1. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Sep 29 17:10:53 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:10:53 +1000 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909291312g3111687cl660fcc3f4f371787@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Paul, I would like to think there is a way your offer could be taken up, and as I suggested earlier I do not believe the charters problems can be solved by dealing with one little bit at a time. There are a number of sections which need amending and clarification and it would be a great service to this group if someone would take this on. I would certainly support you if you were willing to head up such a working group - but for me, with only about a month of my term as co coordinator to run, (I am counting the days) I would not be prepared to take a central role of any sort. BY all means write to me off list if you would like to take this on and I would happily work with you towards getting a working group established. In the meantime - we have a month to go to the IGF meeeting, and I do hope that on this list we can start to put attention towards what we are doing as a group there and some of the issues we need to address. On 30/09/09 6:12 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: > I'd be happy to draft a charter amendment if one were desired, but > without the stipulation that the principles of reason and construction > of language apply with force, literally anything I would draft, no > matter how clear, would be a waste of time and utterly ineffective in > binding the freedom of administrators (the point of such election > provisions). > > Also, in this specific case, no further rules are needed in the > charter to resolve the question, because the 2/3 rule implies that the > 2/3 must exist in a normal election day time period and not over a > week, month, or year. > > If the above case is not sufficiently clear in its prohibition of > extensions for purposes or effect of meeting the 2/3 rule, then no > amount of drafting, no matter how precise, will be sufficient to tie > the hands of any person of even average intelligence who is committed > to getting around the words and told he's got the "leeway" to do so. > And I consider all here quite above average in intelligence. > > So, on another subject, I'd be happy to draft an amendment, but on > this one it's hopeless. > On 9/29/09, McTim wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable law >>> that negates the actions >>> taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within the >>> limits of the charter. >>> >>> >> +1 >> >> If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot. >> >> Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need to >> be further specified. >> >> -- >> 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Sep 29 17:20:39 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:20:39 +1000 Subject: [governance] IGC nominations for speakers at Sharm IGF meeting Message-ID: Thanks to everyone who put their name forward for this. After some discussions with the Secretariat and some strong hints from them as to the sorts of nominations that would be preferable, we have forwarded the following final list. Please note that the people on this list are not definitely speaking and in some slots we may have one speaker only. I believe decisions will be made in the next few days and there may be changes. Orientation: Rafik Dammak (Youth) Ginger Paque Opening: Lisa Horner Katitza Rodriguez Closing: Anja Kovacs Katitza Rodriguez PS ­ on a personal note, I would hope that each of our speakers takes the opportunity to raise our concerns about rights issues being marginalised. I¹m sure there are many ways this can be built into each session with a degree of politeness, and it is important I believe that we stress issues like this and not less these sessions and our contributions become just meaningless repetitive platitudes. Ian Peter -------------- 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 Tue Sep 29 17:31:54 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:31:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC membership In-Reply-To: <4AC1C18C.4040009@itforchange.net> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AC1C18C.4040009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E08@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I'm feelin' that collective responsibility right now. I AM the IGC.... Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:13 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC membership The membership issue of this group certainly needs to be sorted out. I have said this before, but I can see only one real way out. To have a clear membership which is renewed bi-yearly. It doesnt matter if there are only 30-40 such members. They need to feel a collective (sorry for using that word, Milton :) ) responsibility for the caucus. At present it is too much of 'some one else will do it' and coordinators are left with an impossible job. Organizational issues should be dealt by this members list, with free and regular references to the larger group, which consists of those who are interested in the caucus, in the matters of getting information, contributing, and deliberating, but not willing to take much responsibility, which is of course very fine. For most purposes one will never feel the difference while participating in the regular larger group.... it will only be more or less an exceptional thing to take matters to the members group Otherwise we will keep ending up in some absurd situations of the kind Milton refers to. I appeal to coordinators to take this issue up. parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the procedure used. The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership portion who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this attracts 200 people who call themselves "members" at point A and after two years 35% of them lose interest and stop participating, then no charter amendments would ever be possible. If the vote were a close one it would be different, of course. As it is, all that happened was that the vote extension allowed the will of an overwhelming majority to be executed. ________________________________ From: Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Dear list, after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite my silence. I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do. I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made within the regular voting period or during the extension period. I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right? Best, Magaly Pazello 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams > Danny and all, There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that suspicion. So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger > >Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > >Ian, > >Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate decision. > >One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. > >Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions constitute an improper gaming of the process. > >Best regards, >Danny Younger > >[...] -------------- 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 Tue Sep 29 17:33:03 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:33:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves internationalized review panels? 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 17:49:28 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:49:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves > internationalized review panels? > Indeed. I think it was 50 dollars tho (the price of a pizza in Geneva). I had a pizza with camel meat on it last time I was in Egypt (where I expect you and Bill will meet next), it cost closer to 50 cents, but kept me near the loo for a week. YMMV. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- 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 Tue Sep 29 17:57:09 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:57:09 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote Message-ID: <10818177.1254261429824.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Ian and all, If Paul would not be interested in such a WG as you suggest I would. I would however rely heavely on Paul's and Erics input and advise accordingly. I also agree that Paul or Eric would be good choices for WG chairs for such purposes. -----Original Message----- >From: Ian Peter >Sent: Sep 29, 2009 4:10 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > > >Paul, I would like to think there is a way your offer could be taken up, and >as I suggested earlier I do not believe the charters problems can be solved >by dealing with one little bit at a time. There are a number of sections >which need amending and clarification and it would be a great service to >this group if someone would take this on. I would certainly support you if >you were willing to head up such a working group - but for me, with only >about a month of my term as co coordinator to run, (I am counting the days) >I would not be prepared to take a central role of any sort. BY all means >write to me off list if you would like to take this on and I would happily >work with you towards getting a working group established. > >In the meantime - we have a month to go to the IGF meeeting, and I do hope >that on this list we can start to put attention towards what we are doing as >a group there and some of the issues we need to address. > > > > > > >On 30/09/09 6:12 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: > >> I'd be happy to draft a charter amendment if one were desired, but >> without the stipulation that the principles of reason and construction >> of language apply with force, literally anything I would draft, no >> matter how clear, would be a waste of time and utterly ineffective in >> binding the freedom of administrators (the point of such election >> provisions). >> >> Also, in this specific case, no further rules are needed in the >> charter to resolve the question, because the 2/3 rule implies that the >> 2/3 must exist in a normal election day time period and not over a >> week, month, or year. >> >> If the above case is not sufficiently clear in its prohibition of >> extensions for purposes or effect of meeting the 2/3 rule, then no >> amount of drafting, no matter how precise, will be sufficient to tie >> the hands of any person of even average intelligence who is committed >> to getting around the words and told he's got the "leeway" to do so. >> And I consider all here quite above average in intelligence. >> >> So, on another subject, I'd be happy to draft an amendment, but on >> this one it's hopeless. >> On 9/29/09, McTim wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable law >>>> that negates the actions >>>> taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within the >>>> limits of the charter. >>>> >>>> >>> +1 >>> >>> If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot. >>> >>> Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need to >>> be further specified. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 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 Sep 29 18:10:18 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:10:18 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] IGC membership Message-ID: <23242256.1254262218837.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.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 Sep 29 18:21:13 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:21:13 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment Message-ID: <1408556.1254262874080.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> avri and all, From an offlist post from Ian the members list tally is not valid even though Paul and I filed on the same day within hours of each other on this very thread on this very forum. So one and one makes 2. I was earlier told by Ian that only two were needed to conduct an official appeal. The "Appeals Committee" is located where Ian? -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 29, 2009 3:22 PM >To: Governance/IGC List >Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment > > >On 29 Sep 2009, at 16:15, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > >> Ian and all, >> >> Paul and I filed our appeal withing the 72 hour time period, so >> why are you saying the appeals period is now closed? Please advise. > > >It takes 4 members to activate an appeal. > >from consulting the members list, I count 1. > >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 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Sep 29 19:37:06 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:37:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment In-Reply-To: <1408556.1254262874080.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Only responding to say I am misquoted here by Jeffrey and said no such thing, on list or off list. I am not aware of any appeal being lodged. I am not aware of any statement from Paul saying he is appealing (in the lodging of an appeal sense). But more importantly, the period for appeals is closed and that's it. Unless the Appeals Team wants to accept any valid late appeals and advise the co coordinators accordingly. The Appeals Team info was posted here and also is at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/18. Straight of the main navigation menu under About Us. I have tried to stay out of this as much as possible so as to be fair to all parties concerned and all viewpoints expressed, and lest my actions be construed as officiously defending the co coordinators. But like most people on this list I am fed up with this discussion and ask, Jeffrey, that you move on. I also suggest to everyone else that there is little to be gained by further responses here and an awful lot of focus to be lost if this is where we put our attention in the leadup to Sharm. Forming a working group to amend the charter would be a good step and I do encourage it. On 30/09/09 8:21 AM, "Jeffrey A. Williams" wrote: > avri and all, > > From an offlist post from Ian the members list tally is not valid even > though > Paul and I filed on the same day within hours of each other on this very > thread > on this very forum. So one and one makes 2. I was earlier told by Ian that > only two were needed to conduct an official appeal. > > The "Appeals Committee" is located where Ian? > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria >> Sent: Sep 29, 2009 3:22 PM >> To: Governance/IGC List >> Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment >> >> >> On 29 Sep 2009, at 16:15, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >> >>> Ian and all, >>> >>> Paul and I filed our appeal withing the 72 hour time period, so >>> why are you saying the appeals period is now closed? Please advise. >> >> >> It takes 4 members to activate an appeal. >> >> from consulting the members list, I count 1. >> >> 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 > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Tue Sep 29 21:35:47 2009 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:35:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] Posicion de Internauta Argentina por el cctld .hn Message-ID: <8C5CEDD0BEB4441C9F4D67E17E12DA18@Sergio> Posición de Internauta Argentina ante el intento del Gobierno Golpista de Honduras para tomar de forma repentina y abrupta la operación del cctld .hn La Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet, quiere manifestar su repudio al acto criminal del que fueron objeto los compañeros integrantes de la Red de Desarrollo Sostenible de Honduras por parte de la dictadura de la Republica hermana de Honduras. Proseguimos con nuestra solidaridad con el pueblo Hondureño manifestada desde el primer momento que sucedió el movimiento destituyente en ese país, como hemos acompañado todo reclamo y lucha por la justicia y la democracia de todos los pueblos del mundo. Creemos que solo la autodeterminación de los pueblos y el respeto del sistema democrático son los únicos medios idóneos para la solución de los problemas dentro de un país. No debe de haber lugar a legitimar ninguna acción propuesta por movimientos destituyentes del sistema democrático, por ninguna de las estructuras de participacion o de toma de decision de ICANN. Desconocemos la autoridad de estas personas que en nombre del estado de Honduras intentan someter la administración del cctld.hn e instamos a que ICANN se manifieste en este sentido, no puede quedar dudas de la ilegitimidad del accionar de estas personas. Repudiamos la acción u omisión en sus actos de muchos profesionales de informática que prestan sus conocimientos para apoyar estas inactivas del golpismo Antidemocrático Hondureño. Abogamos por el regreso del sistema constitucional al país como así también de su legítimo presidente Manuel Zelaya y repudiamos enérgicamente los abusos a los medios de comunicación y a la Red de Desarrollo Sostenible como ente encargada de la registración del cctld .hn. Saludos Cordiales Con mandato por la Comision Directiva reunida el dìa 28 de Septiembre de 2009 Firman: Sergio Salinas Porto (Presidente; Internauta, Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet) Andrés Zelayeta (Vicepresidente; Internauta, Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet) Hugo Pellejero (Secretario; Internauta, Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 22:06:17 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:06:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF impact evaluation survey: last days to participate! Message-ID: Thanks to worldwide interest, the IGF Impact Survey already received the support of more than 150 participants from all over the globe in a matter of a few days. This is the last week to participate and your views are very important to make the project representative. The link to the online survey is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=y7VRGPKsJUE2fJie_2bX2eaA_3d_3dYou can watch a video with Ginger Paque, project manager, with more information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2oJSCP6UEA Best regards! Marilia Maciel -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- 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 Tue Sep 29 22:16:18 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: 75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu Message-ID: Yes indeed you do! AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, Ono's or Carmens, and it should be eaten right downtown Michigan Avenue, around Water Tower Place. After that we can head to the Blue Goose brewery and tank up. Then go bar hopping on Rush street until 4am, Then we'll slide over to Ann Sathers for Breakfast with two eggs over easy and deep fried cheese-stuffed mash potatoes. Ummmmm Yummmmy And arrive just in time to Lecture the sunrise class at UofC, on the finer points of Mass DNS addressing. Of course we'll send the T.A. out for a bottle of Aleve. Above all, Absolutely No thin greasy, zit inducing, N.Y. street pizza - allowed. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 29 22:18:06 2009 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <917516.70043.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Oh for pete's sake. Can we have relevant discussions to internet governance please. This is ridiculous. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Yehuda Katz To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 12:16:18 PM Subject: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? Yes indeed you do! AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, Ono's or Carmens, and it should be eaten right downtown Michigan Avenue, around Water Tower Place. After that we can head to the Blue Goose brewery and tank up. Then go bar hopping on Rush street until 4am, Then we'll slide over to Ann Sathers for Breakfast with two eggs over easy and deep fried cheese-stuffed mash potatoes. Ummmmm Yummmmy And arrive just in time to Lecture the sunrise class at UofC, on the finer points of Mass DNS addressing. Of course we'll send the T.A. out for a bottle of Aleve. Above all, Absolutely No thin greasy, zit inducing, N.Y. street pizza - allowed. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance __________________________________________________________________________________ Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Sep 29 23:00:52 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:00:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: >If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves >internationalized review panels? Might depend on how you two define "change" At 8:02 AM +0200 4/3/08, William Drake wrote: > >In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort. Prior to that, >I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change >anything, at least not in its first term. Who'd want to throw read meat to >right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election? > and Milton replied: At 4:50 PM -0400 4/4/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >I am getting a little concerned about this apparent intimidation and >fear of the nationalist forces in the US when it comes to Internet >governance. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. > >So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an Obama >Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September 2009. > >That means I will have to buy you a pizza and a beer in Geneva, if my >grasp of cost of living and currency exchange rates is accurate. > I think we know they are going to change *something*, but will that change will be meaningful or cosmetic? Just need to wait a few hours. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Sep 30 02:24:41 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:24:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves > internationalized review panels? You betcha. A couple slices at least. Review panels doth not a clean break make. Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 02:34:03 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:34:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sounds better than the Rough Guide and the Lonely Planet entries for Chicago! Rui 2009/9/30 Yehuda Katz > Yes indeed you do! > > AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, > Ono's or Carmens, and it should be eaten > right downtown Michigan Avenue, around Water Tower Place. > > After that we can head to the Blue Goose brewery and tank up. > Then go bar hopping on Rush street until 4am, > > Then we'll slide over to Ann Sathers for Breakfast with two eggs over easy > and > deep fried cheese-stuffed mash potatoes. Ummmmm Yummmmy > > And arrive just in time to Lecture the sunrise class at UofC, on the finer > points of Mass DNS addressing. Of course we'll send the T.A. out for a > bottle > of Aleve. > > Above all, > Absolutely No thin greasy, zit inducing, N.Y. street pizza - allowed. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Sep 30 02:49:57 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <511056.48327.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Finally the discussion is about something sensible !! I must say I am partial to the deep dish Peperoni Pizza I would like some too...in case we are sending out for some :):) Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ________________________________ From: Rui Correia To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; YehudaKatz Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:34:03 PM Subject: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? Sounds better than the Rough Guide and the Lonely Planet entries for Chicago! Rui 2009/9/30 YehudaKatz Yes indeed you do! > >AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, >Ono's or Carmens, and it should be eaten >right downtown Michigan Avenue, around Water Tower Place. > >After that we can head to the Blue Goose brewery and tank up. >Then go bar hopping on Rush street until 4am, > >Then we'll slide over to Ann Sathers for Breakfast with two eggs over easy and >deep fried cheese-stuffed mash potatoes. UmmmmmYummmmy > >And arrive just in time to Lecture the sunrise class at UofC, on the finer >points of Mass DNS addressing. Of course we'll send the T.A. out for a bottle >of Aleve. > >Above all, >Absolutely No thin greasy, zit inducing, N.Y. street pizza - allowed. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Sep 30 03:30:16 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:30:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38FCE2BB-9252-4941-A032-112C1B387F39@graduateinstitute.ch> On Sep 30, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > Sounds better than the Rough Guide and the Lonely Planet entries for > Chicago! > > Rui > > 2009/9/30 Yehuda Katz > Yes indeed you do! > > AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, As a native Chicagoan I appreciate the spirit of Yehuda's suggestion, but as far as I know deep dish exists mostly for tourists. Pizza is better in Geneva, and more expensive, which makes it more suitable for Milton's penance. On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Might depend on how you two define "change" Thanks for the archival work Adam (you bored?), I didn't recall that Milton's final offer set the bar so low, > > At 4:50 PM -0400 4/4/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an >> Obama >> Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September >> 2009. Ok, I guess they've changed "something" by formally calling out the GAC to put up or... Still calls for a pie in my book. Bill -------------- 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 Sep 30 03:28:59 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <511056.48327.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <511056.48327.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Maistry, Pity we can't download it - yet. Methinks it must be an ICANN conspiracy - they should become more representative and be transformed into the International Corporation for Accountability to the Peperoni Pizza (ICAPP) With apologies to less hungry list members. I've now out for dessert. Rui 2009/9/30 shaila mistry > Finally the discussion is about something sensible !! > I must say I am partial to the deep dish Peperoni Pizza > I would like some too...in case we are sending out for some :):) > > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Rui Correia > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yehuda Katz > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:34:03 PM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? > > Sounds better than the Rough Guide and the Lonely Planet entries for > Chicago! > > Rui > > 2009/9/30 Yehuda Katz > >> Yes indeed you do! >> >> AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, >> Ono's or Carmens, and it should be eaten >> right downtown Michigan Avenue, around Water Tower Place. >> >> After that we can head to the Blue Goose brewery and tank up. >> Then go bar hopping on Rush street until 4am, >> >> Then we'll slide over to Ann Sathers for Breakfast with two eggs over easy >> and >> deep fried cheese-stuffed mash potatoes. Ummmmm Yummmmy >> >> And arrive just in time to Lecture the sunrise class at UofC, on the finer >> points of Mass DNS addressing. Of course we'll send the T.A. out for a >> bottle >> of Aleve. >> >> Above all, >> Absolutely No thin greasy, zit inducing, N.Y. street pizza - allowed. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > -- ________________________________________________ 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 Sep 30 03:29:48 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:29:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: <511056.48327.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Shaila, apologies for "Maistry" 2009/9/30 Rui Correia > Maistry, > > Pity we can't download it - yet. > > Methinks it must be an ICANN conspiracy - they should become more > representative and be transformed into the International Corporation for > Accountability to the Peperoni Pizza (ICAPP) > > With apologies to less hungry list members. I've now out for dessert. > > Rui > > > > 2009/9/30 shaila mistry > > Finally the discussion is about something sensible !! >> I must say I am partial to the deep dish Peperoni Pizza >> I would like some too...in case we are sending out for some :):) >> >> >> >> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** >> >> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** >> >> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Rui Correia >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yehuda Katz >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:34:03 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? >> >> Sounds better than the Rough Guide and the Lonely Planet entries for >> Chicago! >> >> Rui >> >> 2009/9/30 Yehuda Katz >> >>> Yes indeed you do! >>> >>> AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, >>> Ono's or Carmens, and it should be eaten >>> right downtown Michigan Avenue, around Water Tower Place. >>> >>> After that we can head to the Blue Goose brewery and tank up. >>> Then go bar hopping on Rush street until 4am, >>> >>> Then we'll slide over to Ann Sathers for Breakfast with two eggs over >>> easy and >>> deep fried cheese-stuffed mash potatoes. Ummmmm Yummmmy >>> >>> And arrive just in time to Lecture the sunrise class at UofC, on the >>> finer >>> points of Mass DNS addressing. Of course we'll send the T.A. out for a >>> bottle >>> of Aleve. >>> >>> Above all, >>> Absolutely No thin greasy, zit inducing, N.Y. street pizza - allowed. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, 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 >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 03:41:09 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:41:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, Insider tip : If Milton paying means there is no significant change in the new framework, then Bill should begin searching for his wallet... Solution this afternoon, european time. In any case, I'm sure we'll soon have a very interesting discussion on this list regarding what kind of change this means, magnitude, consequences, etc.... The coming months will be interesting. Best B. On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves > internationalized review panels? > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 Wed Sep 30 03:40:25 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:40:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] JPA References: <511056.48327.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719583@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI Wolfgang The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee invites you to attend a briefing on "The Future of the U.S. Government's Role in ICANN, Internet Addressing and Internet Governance" Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:45 am - 1:30 pm, Luncheon Briefing and Q&A U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center, Congressional North Meeting Room (CVC-268) Please RSVP to rsvp at netcaucus.org. Save the date for an important briefing, "The Future of the U.S. Government's Role in ICANN, Internet Addressing and Internet Governance." The briefing will feature the top government officials responsible for managing the relationship between the U.S. and ICANN, the non-profit body that manages the Internet's domain name system, including IP address space allocation. Presenters will represent the NTIA within the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of State respectively. We will include a robust question and answer session as part of the discussion. The briefing is incredibly timely as the current agreement, the Joint Project Agreement (JPA), between the U.S. government and ICANN will expire the day before this briefing on September 30, 2009. There may or may not be a successor agreement to the JPA in place on October 1. Regardless, the U.S. government representatives will discuss the future of Internet addressing and domain name management with or with such an agreement. It promises to be interesting. The presenters will be posted at NetCaucus.org shortly. What: Luncheon Briefing and Q&A (Lunch will be served; this is a widely attended event) Where: U.S. Capitol Visitor's Center, Congressional North Meeting Room (CVC-268) When: Thursday, October 1, 2009, from 11:45 am to 1:30 pm RSVP: Please send RSVPs to rsvp at netcaucus.org or via phone to 202-638-4370. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 30 03:41:48 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:41:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet freedom: Brazilian President Lula vetoes lumping internet under media for restrictions that apply to elections Message-ID: Have not come across a link in English, perhaps someone else can supply one. Rui Meanwhile, 1. Folha Online - Brasil - *Lula* veta restrição à *internet* nas *...* - [ Translate this page]8 hours ago - *Lula* veta restrição à *internet* nas *eleições* e libera votos em trânsito e impresso. Publicidade. MÁRCIO FALCÃO da Folha Online, em Brasília. O *presidente* *...* www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u630931.shtml - Similar 2. G1 > Política - NOTÍCIAS - *Lula* sanciona reforma *eleitoral* e *...* - [ Translate this page]8 hours ago - O *presidente* Luiz Inácio *Lula* da Silva sancionou a reforma *eleitoral* *...* Relator da reforma *eleitoral* recua e propõe liberdade na *internet* nas *eleições* *...* g1.globo.com/.../0,,MUL1323262-5601,00-*LULA*+SANCIONA+REFORMA+*ELEITORAL *+E+LIBERA+DEBATE+ENTRE+CANDIDATOS+N... - Similar 3. *Lula* sanciona reforma *eleitoral* e derruba restrições a debates na *...* - [ Translate this page]8 hours ago - *Lula* sanciona reforma *eleitoral* e derruba restrições a debates na *internet* BRASÍLIA - O *presidente* Luiz Inácio *Lula* da Silva sancionou nesta terça-feira a *...* ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/.../*lula*+sanciona+reforma+*eleitoral* +e+libera+debates+na+*internet*+8701020.html - Similar -- ________________________________________________ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 30 03:55:10 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:55:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN Application Round Opens for Nairobi Meeting Fellowships Message-ID: Applications for the meeting in Nairobi will be accepted from now until 1200 PDT (UTC -7) on 6 November 2009. More information, as well as a link to the application for a fellowship, is available online at: <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-29sep09-en.htm> Application Round Opens for Nairobi Meeting Fellowships Program ensures global representation at ICANN¹s International Public Meetings 29 September 2009 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has launched the ninth round of fellowship program applications for its 37th International Public Meeting to be held in Nairobi, Kenya from 7-12 March 2009. ³Just like the Internet, ICANN is global in scope in its operations,² said Theresa Swinehart , ICANN's Vice President, Global and Strategic Partnerships. ³Our fellowship program, through the contribution of alumni from the previous 7 meetings, continues to experience success in making sure global voices are heard in the wide variety of public forums that it holds.² For the upcoming Seoul Meeting, there are 35 fellows selected from 27 countries, chosen from 132 applications received. 10 of the fellows are alumni from at least one of the past seven programmes; 21 fellows are first-time attendees to any ICANN meeting and 4 have attended past meetings, but are first time fellows. Priority is given to applicants who are current residents of developing and least developed nations and interested in participating in ICANN and its supporting organizations, such as the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization, and the Generic Names Supporting Organization. The fellowship will assist in covering airfare, hotel and a stipend. Recipients will be expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes. As always, registration for ICANN¹s meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend. Applications for the meeting in Nairobi will be accepted from now until 1200 PDT (UTC -7) on 6 November 2009. More information, as well as a link to the application for a fellowship, is available online at: http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 30 04:10:44 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:10:44 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear all it is like X-Mass Time: You know, you will get a present, you have heard some rumours, but you do not know exactly what will be in the box Santa Claus will hand over to you under the Christmas Tree in the Sheraton at the Santa Monica Boulevard in Southern California. For people remaining at the East Cost, they can go to the Hill to get the briefing directly from members of the Congress. And Europeans? As Bertrand has announced - was he, like other Europeans,visited by Fiona and Larry Atlas in the last weeks? - we have to wait until this afternoon - European Time - to see the "Deus Ex Machina", THE "Solution". Only Ken Cukier from the "Economist" got the privilege to get some drops from the new water in advance. My interpretation from the Economist article is that we will have probably indeed an interesting innovative step into a new territory with a decentralized multistakeholder mixture of oversight, accountability mechanisms, review and public forum: A Multiplayer Multilayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration. This will indeed provoke (and need) a lot of discussion. I would share Bertrands expectation that this will be the start of a new beginning, looking forward, going beyond "traditional G (8, 12, 20, 198) thinking (of the outgoing EU Commissioner) and exploring new ways how to govern global challenges in the 21st century. The IGC list has a great chance to become as leader in this new round of conceptual discussions. Be prepared to stimulate your brains :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 09:41 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; William Drake Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? Hi all, Insider tip : If Milton paying means there is no significant change in the new framework, then Bill should begin searching for his wallet... Solution this afternoon, european time. In any case, I'm sure we'll soon have a very interesting discussion on this list regarding what kind of change this means, magnitude, consequences, etc.... The coming months will be interesting. Best B. On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves internationalized review panels? 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Sep 30 06:28:06 2009 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:28:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Using the DNS classes is long-term research, not a realistic short-term solution In-Reply-To: <4AB80326.6000804@mdpi.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909200934j5208b7e1r94c292eaf45724f@mail.gmail.com> <36B03E79-CE70-4446-8ED7-1F6AA42F1371@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FC3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AB78D6A.9090504@mdpi.net> <757B3C67-5AA4-4657-B837-A88AA2E02FE0@psg.com> <4AB7B46E.4000905@mdpi.net> <4AB7EE7C.8020300@cavebear.com> <4AB80326.6000804@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <20090930102806.GA719@nic.fr> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:50:14AM +0200, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote a message of 220 lines which said: > My proposal is a realistic approach taking into account the existing > DNS system as a constraint, it is not a clean slate approach, it is > as much as KISS as possible. For the record, I 100 % agree with Avri Doria and Karl Auerbach, about the technical risks of navigating in unchartered and unexplored waters. I strongly suggest that you take into account their vast practical experience, specially Karl's remarks about the issue of robustness (and you certainly cannot accuse them of being ICANN puppets). Classes are a cute idea but not realistic in the short term. Anyway, I understand that, four months ago, the ITU commissioned a study on the feasability of this solution . Certainly, elementary things such as loading a root with class 65280, resolving it through different resolvers and middleboxes, and setting up a Web site, reachable through class 65280, certainly, all of this was already done? Is there an interim report about this interesting experiment? If ITU were to pay, I would certainly volunteer to perform such a study. But I would not pretend it may produce any useful result. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 30 10:52:53 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:52:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <38FCE2BB-9252-4941-A032-112C1B387F39@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <38FCE2BB-9252-4941-A032-112C1B387F39@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4AC370C5.9070406@cafonso.ca> Tense times, the dawn of a new / modified / really-not-new / whatever ICANN-USG agreement, decision of which city will hold the 2016 Olympics (Chicago x Rio) in two days, I can no longer sleep... --c.a. William Drake wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > >> Sounds better than the Rough Guide and the Lonely Planet entries for >> Chicago! >> >> Rui >> >> 2009/9/30 Yehuda Katz >> Yes indeed you do! >> >> AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, > > > As a native Chicagoan I appreciate the spirit of Yehuda's suggestion, > but as far as I know deep dish exists mostly for tourists. Pizza is > better in Geneva, and more expensive, which makes it more suitable for > Milton's penance. > > > On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Might depend on how you two define "change" > > Thanks for the archival work Adam (you bored?), I didn't recall that > Milton's final offer set the bar so low, >> >> At 4:50 PM -0400 4/4/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an Obama >>> Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September 2009. > > Ok, I guess they've changed "something" by formally calling out the GAC > to put up or... > > Still calls for a pie in my book. > > Bill > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Sep 30 10:53:38 2009 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:53:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Now, it's there - http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09-en.htm#announcement Having read once, trying to figure out what this really means. More work, certainly. izumi 2009/9/30 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Dear all > > it is like X-Mass Time: You know, you will get a present, you have heard some rumours, but you do not know exactly what will be in the box Santa Claus will hand over to you under the Christmas Tree in the Sheraton at the Santa Monica Boulevard in Southern California. For people remaining at the East Cost, they can go to the Hill to get the briefing directly from members of the Congress. And Europeans? As Bertrand has announced - was he, like other Europeans,visited by Fiona and Larry Atlas in the last weeks? - we have to wait until this afternoon - European Time - to see the "Deus Ex Machina", THE "Solution". Only Ken Cukier from the "Economist" got the privilege to get some drops from the new water in advance. My interpretation from the Economist article is that we will have probably indeed an interesting innovative step into a new territory with a decentralized multistakeholder mixture of oversight, accountability mechanisms, review and public forum: A Multiplayer Multilayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration. This will indeed provoke (and need) a lot of discussion. I would share Bertrands expectation that this will be the start of a new beginning, looking forward, going beyond "traditional G (8, 12, 20, 198) thinking (of the outgoing EU Commissioner) and exploring new ways how to govern  global challenges in the 21st century. The IGC list has a great chance to become as leader in this new round of conceptual discussions. Be prepared to stimulate your brains :-))) > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 09:41 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; William Drake > Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? > > > Hi all, > > Insider tip : If Milton paying means there is no significant change in the new framework, then Bill should begin searching for his wallet... > > Solution this afternoon, european time. > > In any case, I'm sure we'll soon have a very interesting discussion on this list regarding what kind of change this means, magnitude, consequences, etc.... > > The coming months will be interesting. > > Best > > B. > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >        If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves internationalized review panels? > >        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 > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 10:56:12 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:56:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Milton buys pizza, I've read it, everyone here should be pleased with their bright shiny present under the tree, except for the Scrooges maybe. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel 2009/9/30 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Dear all > > it is like X-Mass Time: You know, you will get a present, you have heard > some rumours, but you do not know exactly what will be in the box Santa > Claus will hand over to you under the Christmas Tree in the Sheraton at the > Santa Monica Boulevard in Southern California. For people remaining at the > East Cost, they can go to the Hill to get the briefing directly from members > of the Congress. And Europeans? As Bertrand has announced - was he, like > other Europeans,visited by Fiona and Larry Atlas in the last weeks? - we > have to wait until this afternoon - European Time - to see the "Deus Ex > Machina", THE "Solution". Only Ken Cukier from the "Economist" got the > privilege to get some drops from the new water in advance. My interpretation > from the Economist article is that we will have probably indeed an > interesting innovative step into a new territory with a decentralized > multistakeholder mixture of oversight, accountability mechanisms, review and > public forum: A Multiplayer Multilayer Mechanism of Communication, > Coordination and Collaboration. This will indeed provoke (and need) a lot of > discussion. I would share Bertrands expectation that this will be the start > of a new beginning, looking forward, going beyond "traditional G (8, 12, 20, > 198) thinking (of the outgoing EU Commissioner) and exploring new ways how > to govern global challenges in the 21st century. The IGC list has a great > chance to become as leader in this new round of conceptual discussions. Be > prepared to stimulate your brains :-))) > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 09:41 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; William Drake > Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? > > > Hi all, > > Insider tip : If Milton paying means there is no significant change in the > new framework, then Bill should begin searching for his wallet... > > Solution this afternoon, european time. > > In any case, I'm sure we'll soon have a very interesting discussion on this > list regarding what kind of change this means, magnitude, consequences, > etc.... > > The coming months will be interesting. > > Best > > B. > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves > internationalized review panels? > > 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 > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 11:21:22 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:21:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> Hi Mc tim, I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing changed ? B. On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, McTim wrote: > Milton buys pizza, I've read it, everyone here should be pleased with their > bright shiny present under the tree, except for the Scrooges maybe. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > 2009/9/30 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> Dear all >> >> >> it is like X-Mass Time: You know, you will get a present, you have heard >> some rumours, but you do not know exactly what will be in the box Santa >> Claus will hand over to you under the Christmas Tree in the Sheraton at the >> Santa Monica Boulevard in Southern California. For people remaining at the >> East Cost, they can go to the Hill to get the briefing directly from members >> of the Congress. And Europeans? As Bertrand has announced - was he, like >> other Europeans,visited by Fiona and Larry Atlas in the last weeks? - we >> have to wait until this afternoon - European Time - to see the "Deus Ex >> Machina", THE "Solution". Only Ken Cukier from the "Economist" got the >> privilege to get some drops from the new water in advance. My interpretation >> from the Economist article is that we will have probably indeed an >> interesting innovative step into a new territory with a decentralized >> multistakeholder mixture of oversight, accountability mechanisms, review and >> public forum: A Multiplayer Multilayer Mechanism of Communication, >> Coordination and Collaboration. This will indeed provoke (and need) a lot of >> discussion. I would share Bertrands expectation that this will be the start >> of a new beginning, looking forward, going beyond "traditional G (8, 12, 20, >> 198) thinking (of the outgoing EU Commissioner) and exploring new ways how >> to govern global challenges in the 21st century. The IGC list has a great >> chance to become as leader in this new round of conceptual discussions. Be >> prepared to stimulate your brains :-))) >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 09:41 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; William Drake >> Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Insider tip : If Milton paying means there is no significant change in the >> new framework, then Bill should begin searching for his wallet... >> >> Solution this afternoon, european time. >> >> In any case, I'm sure we'll soon have a very interesting discussion on >> this list regarding what kind of change this means, magnitude, consequences, >> etc.... >> >> The coming months will be interesting. >> >> Best >> >> B. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >> >> >> If the JPA ends in an "affirmation of commitment" that involves >> internationalized review panels? >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >> Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 Wed Sep 30 11:28:52 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:28:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <4AC370C5.9070406@cafonso.ca> References: <38FCE2BB-9252-4941-A032-112C1B387F39@graduateinstitute.ch> <4AC370C5.9070406@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <638CB88D-D09F-4E07-95DE-458CF9EB352E@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Carlos On Sep 30, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Tense times, the dawn of a new / modified / really-not-new / whatever > ICANN-USG agreement, Interesting bits *The US Asst. Sec of Commerce has a reserved seat on the PDP review (but not the others) *The Board will "take action" within six months of receipt of the recommendations *The IP lobbyist language on new gTLD and WHOIS The review panel process is going to be fun... Hmm...maybe Milton and I should split the bill. Certainly 'some' change, at least in form... > decision of which city will hold the 2016 Olympics > (Chicago x Rio) in two days, I can no longer sleep... Can't imagine Obama's getting on a plane without some assurances... Bill > > > William Drake wrote: >> >> On Sep 30, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >> >>> Sounds better than the Rough Guide and the Lonely Planet entries for >>> Chicago! >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2009/9/30 Yehuda Katz >>> Yes indeed you do! >>> >>> AND it must be a 'Chicago Style' deep dish, >> >> >> As a native Chicagoan I appreciate the spirit of Yehuda's suggestion, >> but as far as I know deep dish exists mostly for tourists. Pizza is >> better in Geneva, and more expensive, which makes it more suitable >> for >> Milton's penance. >> >> >> On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Might depend on how you two define "change" >> >> Thanks for the archival work Adam (you bored?), I didn't recall that >> Milton's final offer set the bar so low, >>> >>> At 4:50 PM -0400 4/4/08, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an >>>> Obama >>>> Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September >>>> 2009. >> >> Ok, I guess they've changed "something" by formally calling out the >> GAC >> to put up or... >> >> Still calls for a pie in my book. >> >> Bill >> >> > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== *********************************************************** 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 avri at psg.com Wed Sep 30 11:33:26 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:33:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Mc tim, > > I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing > changed ? > > B. And something did change. Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair for right of participation. Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 11:43:05 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:43:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mc tim, > > I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing changed > ? > You are correct, Monsieur. I had their positions reversed. Lots of change here. I read it as the denationalization that many of us have sought. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- 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 Wed Sep 30 11:49:44 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:49:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> Message-ID: <4AC37E18.8050406@apc.org> Ok, so the main shift is the establishment of four review processes which will assess ICANN's performance in four areas in three year cycles. The review teams will be jointly established by the ICANN Chair or CEO and the Chair of the GAC. These reviews will replace the role of the US DoC in reviewing ICANN's performance. One can see an increased role for the GAC in oversight of ICANN here, but it is a 'soft' form of oversight - the 'recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations'. In other words, there is no enforcement mechanism for the recommendations - the ICANN Board is not obliged to implement the recommendations, i.e. the reviews will have the soft force of persuasion and moral or political pressure but not the instruments of 'hard' oversight. This is reinforced in the Affirmation by the clear statement that 'ICANN is a private organization and nothing in this Affirmation should be construed as control by any one entity.' So the Board remains the key body of power within ICANN and the least accountable, as there is no democratic mechanism for the bottom-up ICANN community to dismiss the Board. Nevertheless this is a step forward, with respect to diluting unilateral US oversight of ICANN. It remains to be seen to what extent civil society is represented on any of the review teams and whether the recommendations of the reviews are accepted and implemented by the ICANN Board. The EU has come out in support of the continuation of the IGF 'as it is the only place where all internet related topics can be addressed by a wide range of stakeholders from all over the world, including Parliamentarians.' It will be interesting to see what role the IGF may be able to play as a space where the reviews can be deliberated on in a multi-stakeholder fashion and boost the transparency of the review process and perhaps its soft power. Willie Avri Doria wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Hi Mc tim, >> >> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing >> changed ? >> >> B. > > > And something did change. > > Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer > about. > It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't > chair for right of participation. > > Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant > the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. > > 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 avri at psg.com Wed Sep 30 11:49:41 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:49:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:43, McTim wrote: > read it as the denationalization that many of us have sought. remember the IANA contract. i don't think you are there yet. plus it may not longer be beholden to one nation but is rather beholden to many nations. not the solution many of us sought of having a multistakeholder organization with no national oversight. so i do not think yu can cal is denationalization, though you can call it multi-nationalization as opposed to uni-nationalization. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 30 11:57:20 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:57:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> Message-ID: <4AC37FE0.3030105@wzb.eu> I would say the new arrangement offers a potential for change but is very difficult to say at this point to what extent such changes will become reality. What I really like about the document is the degree to which the Obama administration acknowledges * the existence of other fora and communities ("cross-community deliberations", para 7). This is very different from what we used to hear, namely that we should participate in ICANN instead of criticizing it from outside or elsewhere * the problems with policy development in ICANN. Buzz words such as "fact-based policy development", responsive consultation procedures, "thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken" can be interpreted as an attempt to change to transform ICANN style of policy development. Whether or not such a document can contribute to the badly needed change is another matter. As regulation experts like to say, the more detailed the rules, the easier to game them. jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Hi Mc tim, >> >> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing >> changed ? >> >> B. > > > And something did change. > > Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. > It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair > for right of participation. > > Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the > change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 30 11:58:46 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 00:58:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> Message-ID: At least the review teams aren't populated by current and past board members. And there is room for representatives of the ACs, SOs, with a smattering of experts. DoC keeps an interest the key oversight review team (but not the "golden share" I thought they might keep.) A good outcome. More an opportunity than a fight ahead. I think Bill buys :-) Adam >On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >>Hi Mc tim, >> >>I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing changed ? >> >>B. > > >And something did change. > >Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. >It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't >chair for right of participation. > >Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant >the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. > >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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Sep 30 13:01:02 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:01:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> Message-ID: <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> Let's see. On the one hand we have 1. IANA contract 2. VeriSign contract 3. California law 4. Entrenched org culture 5. Entrenched commercial interests 6. Whatever back channel political deals and assurances were needed in DC, etc (the administration will probably take heat for it anyway) 7. etc On the other hand, we have 1. NTIA's reviews replaced by non-binding panels. So instead of each stakeholder grouping and constituency issuing opinions separately as they do now, some reps will have to find consensus language, which depending on the composition and procedural rules could be tough on they key issues. Someone care to spell out the argument for how this constitutes a real break in the governance of names and numbers, rather than a limited, incremental step? Some years ago the US and EU came up with the face-saving safe harbor agreement on privacy protection, and US business pretty much continued on its merry way. How different will this be, in terms of outcomes? That said, given the absence of obviously better alternatives, I agree with Adam it's not too bad (I'm actually sort of surprised the administration was able to go this far given the lay of the land inside the beltway). But I suspect he's over-optimistic on whether there will be big fights ahead, as well as opportunities. On Jeanette's point regarding having to explain decisions, this is good, but ICANN would presumably argue they do that now. Might have been nice to have had a clear commitment to follow procedures akin to the FCC's to the extent feasible, e.g. with NOIs, NPRMs, decisions, appeals, etc. BD On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > At least the review teams aren't populated by current and past board > members. > > And there is room for representatives of the ACs, SOs, with a > smattering of experts. > > DoC keeps an interest the key oversight review team (but not the > "golden share" I thought they might keep.) A good outcome. More an > opportunity than a fight ahead. I think Bill buys :-) > > Adam > > > > >> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> Hi Mc tim, >>> >>> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if >>> nothing changed ? >>> >>> B. >> >> >> And something did change. >> >> Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be >> cheer about. >> It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't >> chair for right of participation. >> >> Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant >> the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. >> >> 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 *********************************************************** 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 30 13:03:00 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:03:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <4AC37FE0.3030105@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871958F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list, I see it as a right next step into the right direction. If you understand the whole ICANN saga as a process than the "Affirmation" is just another step with an open outcome but a step forward. There are some points which are really innovative: a. the review panels will produce an interesting mix of new and innocative multistakeholder bodies where the members of these bodies will have probably to write their own rules for inner communication and interaction. This is the exploration of new territory. This goes beyond the WGIG and MAG experiences. Certainly the final confirmation for the composition of the review panels is in the hands of ICANNs CEO abd the GAC Chair. But this is already an expression of "co-governance", or - with other words - a further decentralization of power and decision making. Nobody can make single decisions. This will complicated the process, will lead to delays and certain forms of fighting inwards and outwards, but it makes the whole process more transparent, democratic, inclusive and at the end accountable to the broader public. b. I like also the various principles which are included in the text - starting from the public interest to consumer choice, privacy protection, competition, stability, security, interoperability etc. If you collect all these principles and list it on one page you have a "Internet Governance Declaration" which goes beyond the Tunis document. c. I am also pleased that ICANN and NTIA resisted the bipartisan letter which came from the US Congress in August. In his video Beckstrom argues in an impressive way that the "Affirmation" meets on the one hand the criteria of the letter (security, stability, headquartered in the US, US role in the GAC) etc. but does not follow the congressional recommendation just to continue with the JPA in its present form for ever. A very smart move. I agree also with Bertrand that we need now a discussion how to implement this document, how to bring the paper language into political realities. It will depend to a high degree by the individuals (and institutions) who will become involved in this process. It will not be "rest in peace". It is a challenge with a lot of work, a lot of discussion and fierce struggles. But this process will create a dynamic process which will open doors to new territories with the potential to make Internet Governance more democratic, transparent, inclusive and accountable. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 17:57 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? I would say the new arrangement offers a potential for change but is very difficult to say at this point to what extent such changes will become reality. What I really like about the document is the degree to which the Obama administration acknowledges * the existence of other fora and communities ("cross-community deliberations", para 7). This is very different from what we used to hear, namely that we should participate in ICANN instead of criticizing it from outside or elsewhere * the problems with policy development in ICANN. Buzz words such as "fact-based policy development", responsive consultation procedures, "thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken" can be interpreted as an attempt to change to transform ICANN style of policy development. Whether or not such a document can contribute to the badly needed change is another matter. As regulation experts like to say, the more detailed the rules, the easier to game them. jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Hi Mc tim, >> >> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing >> changed ? >> >> B. > > > And something did change. > > Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. > It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair > for right of participation. > > Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the > change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 30 15:08:27 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:38:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <4AC37E18.8050406@apc.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <4AC37E18.8050406@apc.org> Message-ID: <4AC3ACAB.9060206@itforchange.net> i think between the lines, GAC's role has (will) become rather decisive... GAC chair has a big role in setting up supervisory, yet called review, bodies. I feel that in practice, at least by and by, these supervisory structures will begin to exercise more power.... I have still to read the original docs well..... But this looks like as a good a move towards internationalization that looked feasible under present conditions, at least as a first step... We have structures of review/supervision, but no clear principles for it (for ex, what constitutes public interest, which is stressed a lot). So space and opportunity remains for 'evolving globally applicable public policy principles' by the 'enhanced cooperaiton' process which then frames the working of these review/ supervisory structures .... this can, and I think, should be the direction forward.... i have not read earlier ICANN papers, but I am not sure if they spoke so much of the multistakeholder term, I am not sure but suspect that they mostly stuck to 'private'... Is there more of the mutlistakeholder term in the present doc.... parminder Willie Currie wrote: > Ok, so the main shift is the establishment of four review processes > which will assess ICANN's performance in four areas in three year > cycles. The review teams will be jointly established by the ICANN > Chair or CEO and the Chair of the GAC. These reviews will replace the > role of the US DoC in reviewing ICANN's performance. One can see an > increased role for the GAC in oversight of ICANN here, but it is a > 'soft' form of oversight - the 'recommendations of the reviews will be > provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will > take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations'. In > other words, there is no enforcement mechanism for the recommendations > - the ICANN Board is not obliged to implement the recommendations, > i.e. the reviews will have the soft force of persuasion and moral or > political pressure but not the instruments of 'hard' oversight. This > is reinforced in the Affirmation by the clear statement that 'ICANN is > a private organization and nothing in this Affirmation should be > construed as control by any one entity.' So the Board remains the > key body of power within ICANN and the least accountable, as there is > no democratic mechanism for the bottom-up ICANN community to dismiss > the Board. > > Nevertheless this is a step forward, with respect to diluting > unilateral US oversight of ICANN. It remains to be seen to what extent > civil society is represented on any of the review teams and whether > the recommendations of the reviews are accepted and implemented by the > ICANN Board. The EU has come out in support of the continuation of the > IGF 'as it is the only place where all internet related topics can be > addressed by a wide range of stakeholders from all over the world, > including Parliamentarians.' It will be interesting to see what role > the IGF may be able to play as a space where the reviews can be > deliberated on in a multi-stakeholder fashion and boost the > transparency of the review process and perhaps its soft power. > > Willie > > Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> Hi Mc tim, >>> >>> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing >>> changed ? >>> >>> B. >> >> >> And something did change. >> >> Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer >> about. >> It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't >> chair for right of participation. >> >> Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant >> the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. >> >> 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 30 16:06:15 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:06:15 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? Message-ID: <23671041.1254341175280.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Jeanette and all, I agree with this cautious view/analysis. The old saying; "no matter how things change it amazing how they remain the same", comes to mind. I'm skeptical that without some form of direct accountability that real change for the good can be realized or normalized. -----Original Message----- >From: Jeanette Hofmann >Sent: Sep 30, 2009 10:57 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria >Subject: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? > >I would say the new arrangement offers a potential for change but is >very difficult to say at this point to what extent such changes will >become reality. > >What I really like about the document is the degree to which the Obama >administration acknowledges > >* the existence of other fora and communities ("cross-community >deliberations", para 7). This is very different from what we used to >hear, namely that we should participate in ICANN instead of criticizing >it from outside or elsewhere > >* the problems with policy development in ICANN. Buzz words such as >"fact-based policy development", responsive consultation procedures, >"thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken" can be >interpreted as an attempt to change to transform ICANN style of policy >development. > >Whether or not such a document can contribute to the badly needed change >is another matter. As regulation experts like to say, the more detailed >the rules, the easier to game them. > >jeanette > > > >Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> Hi Mc tim, >>> >>> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing >>> changed ? >>> >>> B. >> >> >> And something did change. >> >> Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. >> It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair >> for right of participation. >> >> Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the >> change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. >> >> 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 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 karl at cavebear.com Wed Sep 30 16:08:22 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:08:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> On 09/30/2009 10:01 AM, William Drake wrote: > Let's see. On the one hand we have > > 1. IANA contract > 2. VeriSign contract > 3. California law > 4. Entrenched org culture > 5. Entrenched commercial interests > 6. Whatever back channel political deals and assurances were needed in > DC, etc (the administration will probably take heat for it anyway) > 7. etc > > On the other hand, we have > > 1. NTIA's reviews replaced by non-binding panels. I see serious problems with this "Affirmation". First of all, NTIA cites as authority only the most vague and general of statutory authorizations. If one accepts those as adequate it means, for example, that NTIA has the general authority to enter into agreements that require US corporations to include a committee of foreign governments in their highest decision making processes. That might be a thought that gives comfort to some outside the US but it scares the beejeebers out of me as a whole new and previously unseen kind of expansion of US governmental power into the affairs of private activities. There are several other aspects in which NTIA's citation of authority is not adequate for the impositions it places on ICANN. Second, the agreement, as you mention, leaves open many other issues, such as who prepares the root zone, is NTIA still in the approval loop (I see no reason to believe that it is not). Third, the "Affirmation" seems to be designed to buttress the intellectual property industry's drumbeat for an every more revealing and privacy-busting "whois" Fourth, it leaves ICANN still in an unclear position with regard to anti-trust laws. Fifth, given that the ICANN-Verisign contracts and legal agreements are based on certain assumptions about what NTIA delegated to ICANN, there is now a cloud on those contracts and agreements in that they now may be based on a vanished foundation. The "Affirmation" is still based on the technically false belief that other DNS systems do exist and that some may come into larger use than they have. And where are the root operators in all of this - they, at a flick of their text editors - can obviate this entire ICANN/NTIA structure. This "Affirmation" is a collection of euphemisms wrapped in pretty ribbons. By-the-way, did anyone else notice the list of "reactions" - all from people who must have been given an advance copy and none of whom are ICANN critics. --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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 30 16:21:44 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:21:44 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? Message-ID: <13374916.1254342104754.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Karl and all, Good and thoughtful points here Karl, thanks! Me thinks that there is much that is not well defined "Yet" in this affirmation that may be later or may never be, leaving same to multipul interpratations which has long reaching benifits as well as detraments. So I am not sure that DOC/NTIA is fully if at all off the hook yet, or wants to be. But it is clear that Beckstrom would prefer such. The privacy intrusion vis-a-vis WHOIS is worrisom as that has been and remains a contencious issue. -----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach >Sent: Sep 30, 2009 3:08 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, William Drake >Cc: Adam Peake >Subject: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? > >On 09/30/2009 10:01 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Let's see. On the one hand we have >> >> 1. IANA contract >> 2. VeriSign contract >> 3. California law >> 4. Entrenched org culture >> 5. Entrenched commercial interests >> 6. Whatever back channel political deals and assurances were needed in >> DC, etc (the administration will probably take heat for it anyway) >> 7. etc >> >> On the other hand, we have >> >> 1. NTIA's reviews replaced by non-binding panels. > >I see serious problems with this "Affirmation". > >First of all, NTIA cites as authority only the most vague and general of >statutory authorizations. If one accepts those as adequate it means, >for example, that NTIA has the general authority to enter into >agreements that require US corporations to include a committee of >foreign governments in their highest decision making processes. > >That might be a thought that gives comfort to some outside the US but it >scares the beejeebers out of me as a whole new and previously unseen >kind of expansion of US governmental power into the affairs of private >activities. > >There are several other aspects in which NTIA's citation of authority is >not adequate for the impositions it places on ICANN. > >Second, the agreement, as you mention, leaves open many other issues, >such as who prepares the root zone, is NTIA still in the approval loop >(I see no reason to believe that it is not). > >Third, the "Affirmation" seems to be designed to buttress the >intellectual property industry's drumbeat for an every more revealing >and privacy-busting "whois" > >Fourth, it leaves ICANN still in an unclear position with regard to >anti-trust laws. > >Fifth, given that the ICANN-Verisign contracts and legal agreements are >based on certain assumptions about what NTIA delegated to ICANN, there >is now a cloud on those contracts and agreements in that they now may be >based on a vanished foundation. > >The "Affirmation" is still based on the technically false belief that >other DNS systems do exist and that some may come into larger use than >they have. > >And where are the root operators in all of this - they, at a flick of >their text editors - can obviate this entire ICANN/NTIA structure. > >This "Affirmation" is a collection of euphemisms wrapped in pretty ribbons. > >By-the-way, did anyone else notice the list of "reactions" - all from >people who must have been given an advance copy and none of whom are >ICANN critics. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 30 16:32:33 2009 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:32:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4AC3C061.8070506@wzb.eu> > By-the-way, did anyone else notice the list of "reactions" - all from > people who must have been given an advance copy and none of whom are > ICANN critics. This part reminded me of book review/advertising techniques. The absorbing capacity of political rhetorics is amazing. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance