From vanda at uol.com.br  Thu Apr  1 16:53:49 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:53:49 -0300
Subject: [governance] Happy Easter/Pesach
Message-ID: <00c801cad1dd$709f8300$51de8900$@com.br>

 

Dear colleagues/ friends 

 

To all of you celebrating Easter and Pesach, I wish  a wonderful time with
all you love. 

If you do not celebrate, enjoy also lots of chocolate!!

Best, 

 

cid:image002.jpg at 01C93E96.B7BF8BD0

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

Alameda Santos 1470 #1407

Tel - +55.11.3266.6253

Mob- +55.11.8181.1464

 <mailto:vanda at uol.com.br> vanda at uol.com.br

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100401/6535682a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100401/6535682a/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From sdkaaa at gmail.com  Fri Apr  2 02:10:20 2010
From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 06:10:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Happy Easter/Pesach
In-Reply-To: <00c801cad1dd$709f8300$51de8900$@com.br>
References: <00c801cad1dd$709f8300$51de8900$@com.br>
Message-ID: <1436068554-1270188577-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-777354401-@bda100.bisx.produk.on.blackberry>

Thank u vanda.
Happy Easter to everyone!
Sent via my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: "Vanda UOL" <vanda at uol.com.br>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:53:49 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] Happy Easter/Pesach

 

Dear colleagues/ friends 

 

To all of you celebrating Easter and Pesach, I wish  a wonderful time with
all you love. 

If you do not celebrate, enjoy also lots of chocolate!!

Best, 

 

cid:image002.jpg at 01C93E96.B7BF8BD0

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

Alameda Santos 1470 #1407

Tel - +55.11.3266.6253

Mob- +55.11.8181.1464

 <mailto:vanda at uol.com.br> vanda at uol.com.br

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100402/bf431c00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Apr  2 11:57:09 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:57:09 -0700
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd World
Message-ID: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>

This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is IMHO a
subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
329_pf.html

Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"

During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it
impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced farmers
off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.

"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not
worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti - told
the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice
crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else."

Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none in
Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency report
that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report from
Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world leaders
are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries dependent
on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that poor
countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by rebuilding
their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that
has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."

Neo-liberal policies forced on Haiti

The Clinton administration forced Jean Bertrand Aristide to agree to cut
rice tariffs drastically when the US restored the Haitian president to power
in October 1994. Aristide, Haiti´s first democratically elected president,
had been overthrown by a US-backed military coup in 1991. In return for $770
million in international loans and aid, Aristide was required to agree to a
business-friendly "structural adjustment" program that aside from cutting
food tariffs, also included freezing the minimum wage, cutting the size of
the civil service and privatizing public utilities. (Aristide annoyed the US
by being slow to implement such policies making Bill Clinton´s apology this
month all the more surprising.)

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Apr  3 13:02:29 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 13:02:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
Message-ID: <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>

Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient" 
distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create 
a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the 
potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to 
discontiguous events).

/John


On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
> issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is IMHO a
> subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
> 329_pf.html
> 
> Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> 
> During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
> admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it
> impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced farmers
> off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
> 
> "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not
> worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti - told
> the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
> everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice
> crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else."
> 
> Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none in
> Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency report
> that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report from
> Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world leaders
> are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries dependent
> on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that poor
> countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by rebuilding
> their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
> imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that
> has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
> Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net  Sat Apr  3 13:23:31 2010
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 13:23:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <p06200747c7dd295be62e@[10.0.1.3]>

The typical economist prelude to such a 
discussion is " ... all other things being equal 
..."

And much of the time, of course, they aren't.

George



At 1:02 PM -0400 4/3/10, John Curran wrote:
>Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
>distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
>a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
>also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
>potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
>discontiguous events).
>
>/John
>
>
>On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
>>  This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
>>  issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is IMHO a
>>  subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>>
>>  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
>>  329_pf.html
>>
>>  Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>>
>>  During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
>>  admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it
>>  impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced farmers
>>  off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
>>
>>  "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not
>>  worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti - told
>>  the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
>>  everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice
>>  crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else."
>>
>>  Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none in
>>  Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency report
>>  that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report from
>>  Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world leaders
>>  are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries dependent
>>  on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that poor
>>  countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by rebuilding
>>  their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
>>  imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that
>>  has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
>>  Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr  3 13:25:22 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:25:22 -0700
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>

A useful lesson in this area as in others.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:02 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
World


Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient" 
distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create 
a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but also
need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the 
potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to 
discontiguous events).

/John


On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall 
> issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is 
> IMHO a subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010
> 032001
> 329_pf.html
> 
> Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> 
> During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton 
> admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports 
> made it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy 
> forced farmers off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed 
> itself.
> 
> "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has 
> not worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to 
> Haiti - told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I 
> had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to 
> produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I 
> did; nobody else."
> 
> Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none 
> in Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency 
> report that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP 
> report from Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, 
> suggests world leaders are reconsidering trade and aid policies that 
> make poor countries dependent on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official 
> John Holmes as saying that poor countries, like Haiti, need to become 
> more self-sufficient by rebuilding their own food production. "A 
> combination of food aid, but also cheap imports have...resulted in a 
> lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that has to be reversed," 
> Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but Haiti´s a prime 
> example. I think this is where we should st 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Sat Apr  3 19:10:22 2010
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 16:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>
References: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>
Message-ID: <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Free trade would work much better if the developed world would not put up barriers to the developing world. America, are you listening? Well, OK, probably not. Protecting America's farmers is more important than assisting the developing world. And if the developed world, and in particular the US and to a lesser extent Europe, would allow the developing world to play on an equal footing, then free trade would largely be of benefit to the developing world.

David



----- Original Message ----
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Sun, 4 April, 2010 3:25:22 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd World

A useful lesson in this area as in others.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:02 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
World


Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient" 
distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create 
a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but also
need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the 
potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to 
discontiguous events).

/John


On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall 
> issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is 
> IMHO a subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010
> 032001
> 329_pf.html
> 
> Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> 
> During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton 
> admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports 
> made it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy 
> forced farmers off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed 
> itself.
> 
> "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has 
> not worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to 
> Haiti - told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I 
> had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to 
> produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I 
> did; nobody else."
> 
> Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none 
> in Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency 
> report that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP 
> report from Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, 
> suggests world leaders are reconsidering trade and aid policies that 
> make poor countries dependent on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official 
> John Holmes as saying that poor countries, like Haiti, need to become 
> more self-sufficient by rebuilding their own food production. "A 
> combination of food aid, but also cheap imports have...resulted in a 
> lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that has to be reversed," 
> Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but Haiti´s a prime 
> example. I think this is where we should st 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com  Sun Apr  4 03:16:17 2010
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 04:16:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
References: <AcrSXNN1A1UyL1PYS2Sh682ux/g+zAAHviKg>
	 <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
Message-ID: <p2p4ca4162f1004040016ja48c8eadn9436a8aab91b368a@mail.gmail.com>

thanks Michel, 100% agree with your HO.
Best,
Roxana



2010/4/2 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

> This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
> issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is IMHO
> a
> subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
> 329_pf.html
>
> Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>
> During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
> admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it
> impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced farmers
> off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
>
> "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not
> worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti - told
> the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
> everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice
> crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else."
>
> Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none in
> Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency report
> that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report from
> Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world leaders
> are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries dependent
> on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that poor
> countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by rebuilding
> their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
> imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming, and
> that
> has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
> Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
>
> Neo-liberal policies forced on Haiti
>
> The Clinton administration forced Jean Bertrand Aristide to agree to cut
> rice tariffs drastically when the US restored the Haitian president to
> power
> in October 1994. Aristide, Haiti´s first democratically elected president,
> had been overthrown by a US-backed military coup in 1991. In return for
> $770
> million in international loans and aid, Aristide was required to agree to a
> business-friendly "structural adjustment" program that aside from cutting
> food tariffs, also included freezing the minimum wage, cutting the size of
> the civil service and privatizing public utilities. (Aristide annoyed the
> US
> by being slow to implement such policies making Bill Clinton´s apology this
> month all the more surprising.)
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100404/927b6b8e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Apr  4 03:34:11 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 19:34:11 +1200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>
	 <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <z2k83b95841004040034z5ae33563j864205c4ecdfa062@mail.gmail.com>

History continues to teach us that we cannot cry over spilt milk
whilst the Impact of the US's Foreign policy pertaining to Trade has
been in the US's best interest. It is natural and normal in terms of
human relations to desire to be self-serving but now Hillary Clinton's
speech sends a strong market signal of greater expansive sense of
corporate responsibility or social responsibility which is rare for a
superpower to acknowledge taking responsibility for economic policy.
Employing the "sociological imagination" as a tool, every action has
the capacity impact onto remote players and so in the US State's
attempt to create price ceilings for US farmers and subsidising the
difference, the surplus would often be directed to third world
countries whose farmers can barely compete with the price differential
and the amount of food flooding their local markets.

In that sense a more targeted approach to enhancing markets is
beneficial instead of a blanket gain for all farmers in the US. This
is why forums such as this one is a opportune way of building
collaboration amongst policy writers, lawyers, economists etc.

The reality is that countries in the Pacific struggle with this as
Australia and New Zealand by virtue of the PICTA is now engaging
countries in the region on discussions concerning PACER PLUS. The
reality is that there is a food, energy and water crisis and blanket
Free Trade Agreements could prove detrimental as most of these
economies lack trade neogitation skills, lack of collaborative
engagement from the public sector and private sector. This is hugely
debated in the Pacific region and I thank you Michael and others for
your comments.

Sala (Fiji)

On 4/4/10, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Free trade would work much better if the developed world would not put up
> barriers to the developing world. America, are you listening? Well, OK,
> probably not. Protecting America's farmers is more important than assisting
> the developing world. And if the developed world, and in particular the US
> and to a lesser extent Europe, would allow the developing world to play on
> an equal footing, then free trade would largely be of benefit to the
> developing world.
>
> David
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Sent: Sun, 4 April, 2010 3:25:22 AM
> Subject: RE: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
> World
>
> A useful lesson in this area as in others.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:02 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
> World
>
>
> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but also
> need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
> discontiguous events).
>
> /John
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
>> This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
>> issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
>> IMHO a subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010
>> 032001
>> 329_pf.html
>>
>> Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>>
>> During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
>> admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
>> made it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy
>> forced farmers off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed
>> itself.
>>
>> "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
>> not worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to
>> Haiti - told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I
>> had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to
>> produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I
>> did; nobody else."
>>
>> Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
>> in Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
>> report that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP
>> report from Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince,
>> suggests world leaders are reconsidering trade and aid policies that
>> make poor countries dependent on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official
>> John Holmes as saying that poor countries, like Haiti, need to become
>> more self-sufficient by rebuilding their own food production. "A
>> combination of food aid, but also cheap imports have...resulted in a
>> lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that has to be reversed,"
>> Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but Haiti´s a prime
>> example. I think this is where we should st
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun Apr  4 07:24:16 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:24:16 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <z2k83b95841004040034z5ae33563j864205c4ecdfa062@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>	 <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <z2k83b95841004040034z5ae33563j864205c4ecdfa062@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BB876E0.7070800@cafonso.ca>

Which Hillary's speech? We are debating Bill Clinton's remarks as a UN 
special envoy to Haiti.

Anyway, right now the recent Obama government's decision to reduce 
barriers to ethanol imports is meeting severe resistance from US corn 
farmers. Any similar attempt regarding other crops will have similar 
reactions, and basically nothing is new on this and nothing will change, 
remorseful discourses aside. Europe is of course no exception.

--c.a.

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> History continues to teach us that we cannot cry over spilt milk
> whilst the Impact of the US's Foreign policy pertaining to Trade has
> been in the US's best interest. It is natural and normal in terms of
> human relations to desire to be self-serving but now Hillary Clinton's
> speech sends a strong market signal of greater expansive sense of
> corporate responsibility or social responsibility which is rare for a
> superpower to acknowledge taking responsibility for economic policy.
> Employing the "sociological imagination" as a tool, every action has
> the capacity impact onto remote players and so in the US State's
> attempt to create price ceilings for US farmers and subsidising the
> difference, the surplus would often be directed to third world
> countries whose farmers can barely compete with the price differential
> and the amount of food flooding their local markets.
> 
> In that sense a more targeted approach to enhancing markets is
> beneficial instead of a blanket gain for all farmers in the US. This
> is why forums such as this one is a opportune way of building
> collaboration amongst policy writers, lawyers, economists etc.
> 
> The reality is that countries in the Pacific struggle with this as
> Australia and New Zealand by virtue of the PICTA is now engaging
> countries in the region on discussions concerning PACER PLUS. The
> reality is that there is a food, energy and water crisis and blanket
> Free Trade Agreements could prove detrimental as most of these
> economies lack trade neogitation skills, lack of collaborative
> engagement from the public sector and private sector. This is hugely
> debated in the Pacific region and I thank you Michael and others for
> your comments.
> 
> Sala (Fiji)
> 
> On 4/4/10, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Free trade would work much better if the developed world would not put up
>> barriers to the developing world. America, are you listening? Well, OK,
>> probably not. Protecting America's farmers is more important than assisting
>> the developing world. And if the developed world, and in particular the US
>> and to a lesser extent Europe, would allow the developing world to play on
>> an equal footing, then free trade would largely be of benefit to the
>> developing world.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>> To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Sent: Sun, 4 April, 2010 3:25:22 AM
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>> World
>>
>> A useful lesson in this area as in others.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:02 AM
>> To: michael gurstein
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>> World
>>
>>
>> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
>> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
>> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but also
>> need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
>> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
>> discontiguous events).
>>
>> /John
>>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
>>> issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
>>> IMHO a subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010
>>> 032001
>>> 329_pf.html
>>>
>>> Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>>>
>>> During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
>>> admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
>>> made it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy
>>> forced farmers off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
>>> not worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to
>>> Haiti - told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I
>>> had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to
>>> produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I
>>> did; nobody else."
>>>
>>> Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
>>> in Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
>>> report that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP
>>> report from Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince,
>>> suggests world leaders are reconsidering trade and aid policies that
>>> make poor countries dependent on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official
>>> John Holmes as saying that poor countries, like Haiti, need to become
>>> more self-sufficient by rebuilding their own food production. "A
>>> combination of food aid, but also cheap imports have...resulted in a
>>> lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that has to be reversed,"
>>> Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but Haiti´s a prime
>>> example. I think this is where we should st
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sun Apr  4 08:55:06 2010
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sun,  4 Apr 2010 05:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits
In-Reply-To: 4BB876E0.7070800@cafonso.ca
Message-ID: <sympa.1270385575.1842.534@lists.cpsr.org>

Not related, but of interest to cited remarks of Hon. Bill Clinton:

CSPAN
March 10th, 2010
CSPAN Global Health Program Senate Foreign Relations with Bill Gates & Bill
Clinton

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/10/HP/A/30493/Senate+Foreign+Relations+Cmte+with+Fmr+Pres+Clinton+and+Bill+Gates.aspx

---

CSPAN
Global Internet Freedom - Mar 2, 2010
Senate Committee Judiciary | Human Rights and the Law 

The Human Rights and Law Subcommittee held a hearing titled "Global Internet
Freedom and the Rule of Law." Witnesses focused on censorship of information on
the Internet, privacy rights, and government regulation to preserve Internet
transparency. This hearing was the second part of two subcommittee hearings on
global internet freedom. The .. 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/220384

---

-30-
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at acm.org  Sun Apr  4 11:25:53 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:25:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <4BB876E0.7070800@cafonso.ca>
References: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>	 <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <z2k83b95841004040034z5ae33563j864205c4ecdfa062@mail.gmail.com> <4BB876E0.7070800@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <3DC62766-99D7-4732-8B1C-A2D99BEDF0AD@acm.org>


On 4 Apr 2010, at 07:24, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Anyway, right now the recent Obama government's decision to reduce barriers to ethanol imports is meeting severe resistance from US corn farmers. Any similar attempt regarding other crops will have similar reactions, and basically nothing is new on this and nothing will change, remorseful discourses aside. Europe is of course no exception.


just checking because i do not know, what are Brazil's policies regarding the protection of its farmers and industries?

also i think it is easy to condemn other countries for such behavior, but when masses of people are unemployed and homeless, despite the fact that rich manufacturers and agribusiness are raking in the billions, the issue is slightly more complex then US and Europe are bad.  also when the business leaders in the developing world are exploiting their workers and using child labor in many case to enable their capitalists to get rich, were does the motivation come from?

this your country bad, my country good stuff is not going to get us very far - though it does help the owners of our repspective countries a bunch.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Apr  4 12:02:23 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 09:02:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <3DC62766-99D7-4732-8B1C-A2D99BEDF0AD@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4213E6E271DF4A60B892AD1634822FF4@userPC>

Avri,

I don't think that this is about "your country bad/mine good" but rather
about the impact of the policy of an extremely rich and powerful country
impacting extremely negatively on the economic conditions in an extremely
poor country. 

And more importantly for our purposes the fact that that particular policy
(now apparently disavowed by one of its most important protagonists--Bill
Clinton) is underpinned by a philosophical/ideological approach
(neo-liberalism) which is very much alive in our discussions here on
Internet Governance i.e. the mystical belief in "letting the market decide"
irrespective of reality or impact.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 8:26 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
World



On 4 Apr 2010, at 07:24, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Anyway, right now the recent Obama government's decision to reduce 
> barriers to ethanol imports is meeting severe resistance from US corn 
> farmers. Any similar attempt regarding other crops will have similar 
> reactions, and basically nothing is new on this and nothing will 
> change, remorseful discourses aside. Europe is of course no exception.


just checking because i do not know, what are Brazil's policies regarding
the protection of its farmers and industries?

also i think it is easy to condemn other countries for such behavior, but
when masses of people are unemployed and homeless, despite the fact that
rich manufacturers and agribusiness are raking in the billions, the issue is
slightly more complex then US and Europe are bad.  also when the business
leaders in the developing world are exploiting their workers and using child
labor in many case to enable their capitalists to get rich, were does the
motivation come from?

this your country bad, my country good stuff is not going to get us very far
- though it does help the owners of our repspective countries a bunch.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Apr  4 12:25:16 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 18:25:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <3DC62766-99D7-4732-8B1C-A2D99BEDF0AD@acm.org>
References: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>	 <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <z2k83b95841004040034z5ae33563j864205c4ecdfa062@mail.gmail.com> <4BB876E0.7070800@cafonso.ca> <3DC62766-99D7-4732-8B1C-A2D99BEDF0AD@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4E71C2D8-6C6E-4FE0-A22B-B1408FB078D8@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> On 4 Apr 2010, at 07:24, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, right now the recent Obama government's decision to reduce barriers to ethanol imports is meeting severe resistance from US corn farmers. Any similar attempt regarding other crops will have similar reactions, and basically nothing is new on this and nothing will change, remorseful discourses aside. Europe is of course no exception.
> 
> 
> just checking because i do not know, what are Brazil's policies regarding the protection of its farmers and industries?

Brazil and India have refused to liberalize their manufacturing and services sectors in exchange for agricultural concessions to the extent the US and Europe consider necessary in order to be able to sell a deal at home (particularly given that the US has already lost most of its industrial base and has had whole cities/states gutted).  Competition from China being a if not the principle concern in manufacturing.  
> 
> also i think it is easy to condemn other countries for such behavior, but when masses of people are unemployed and homeless, despite the fact that rich manufacturers and agribusiness are raking in the billions, the issue is slightly more complex then US and Europe are bad.  

Slightly...

The geometry of interest alignments and misalignments across countries and sectors may have become unworkable for a universal model.  There's a lot of concern in Geneva trade circles that the old architecture of broad based multilateral liberalization cannot deepen, and that discriminatory bilateral and plurilateral deals will be the default.

> also when the business leaders in the developing world are exploiting their workers and using child labor in many case to enable their capitalists to get rich, were does the motivation come from?
> 
> this your country bad, my country good stuff is not going to get us very far - though it does help the owners of our repspective countries a bunch.

and feels good.

BTW there are some important implications for people interested in IG too.  There's a whole complex of negotiations concerning telecom, Internet commerce, and ICT-related goods and services that have been underway for over a decade, since before the Doha Round began.  If the round fails the bits of interest to key industries will become the focus of renewed efforts to cut exclusive deals, the moratorium on applying customs duties to cross-border intangile transactions probably goes out the window, and so on.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Apr  4 12:41:17 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:41:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Gurstein:
Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries" he stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have been - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the land" in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development process. 

Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done to the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman farmers and self-sufficiency?

While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local sources of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess people will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political agenda. 

The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be "self-sufficient" in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense American politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This plays well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter nonsense and will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with other countries and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an artificial "national" self-sufficiency? 

Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil, food, etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy a world of good. 

To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
> 
> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
> also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
> discontiguous events).
> 
> /John
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> 
> > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
> > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
> IMHO a
> > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
> > 329_pf.html
> >
> > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> >
> > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
> > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
> made it
> > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
> farmers
> > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
> >
> > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
> not
> > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
> told
> > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
> > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
> rice
> > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
> else."
> >
> > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
> in
> > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
> report
> > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
> from
> > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
> leaders
> > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
> dependent
> > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
> poor
> > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
> rebuilding
> > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
> > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
> and that
> > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
> > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Apr  4 14:55:33 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:55:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Chinese root server is shut down -
 DNS and censorship
In-Reply-To: <t2yf65fb55e1004030123s419de524tb5292f580f5c9e1a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4E930CC-D653-41A3-937E-241DDBCABF52@ipjustice.org>
            <j2j28cfc1a41004021229j4f2e6d6neb819e550525c85b@mail.gmail.com>
 <t2yf65fb55e1004030123s419de524tb5292f580f5c9e1a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13365@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> If indeed it is official chinese govt dns
> hacking, i would love to see all the rootops pull their nodes from
> china, but this is unlikely to happen.

Why?

> If you or I performed this
> attack, we would likely be prosecuted in many jurisdictions.

Indeed. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Sun Apr  4 14:57:22 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:57:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <4213E6E271DF4A60B892AD1634822FF4@userPC>
References: <4213E6E271DF4A60B892AD1634822FF4@userPC>
Message-ID: <2B0B273D-6F6B-426B-9A55-127D0F7E77AA@acm.org>


On 4 Apr 2010, at 12:02, michael gurstein wrote:

> And more importantly for our purposes the fact that that particular policy
> (now apparently disavowed by one of its most important protagonists--Bill
> Clinton)


sure now that the US (the people not wall street) is on its way to 3rd world status, it makes sense to disavow the strategy.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Apr  4 16:18:05 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:18:05 +1200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <4E71C2D8-6C6E-4FE0-A22B-B1408FB078D8@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>
	 <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <z2k83b95841004040034z5ae33563j864205c4ecdfa062@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4BB876E0.7070800@cafonso.ca>
	 <3DC62766-99D7-4732-8B1C-A2D99BEDF0AD@acm.org>
	 <4E71C2D8-6C6E-4FE0-A22B-B1408FB078D8@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <g2m83b95841004041318n165e87f7ub59ce79260e58fc8@mail.gmail.com>

I have been reading these discussions with much interest. Trade
liberalisation affects ICT development in the region. Southern Cross
is soon to have a new competitor in the Pacific Fibre (see details in
Fiji Islands Business page 10 April 2010 issue - available online).

Trade liberalisation also impacts in numerous ways:-

a) cost of technology and services - which has a flow on effect onto
the consumers and even if regulators started putting price celings,
lack  of comprehensive analysis means that this could also affect
existing telco operators capacity to build their own broadband
infrastructure as resources would have to be prioritised;
b)issues of standardisation arises as the Pacific has poor
"Anti-dumping" measures due to ill-developed capacity locally - poor
border control enforcement and surveillance etc etc


Here's a paper on the impact of trade liberalisation on Forum Island
Countries in the Pacific:

http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Revenue%20consequences%20of%20Trade%20Liberalisation1.pdf


http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/PICTA%20RoO%20Manual3.pdf

http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/PICTA.pdf

http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/PACER.pdf

http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/FAQs%20PICTA%20PACER.pdf

On 4/5/10, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4 Apr 2010, at 07:24, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, right now the recent Obama government's decision to reduce
>>> barriers to ethanol imports is meeting severe resistance from US corn
>>> farmers. Any similar attempt regarding other crops will have similar
>>> reactions, and basically nothing is new on this and nothing will change,
>>> remorseful discourses aside. Europe is of course no exception.
>>
>>
>> just checking because i do not know, what are Brazil's policies regarding
>> the protection of its farmers and industries?
>
> Brazil and India have refused to liberalize their manufacturing and services
> sectors in exchange for agricultural concessions to the extent the US and
> Europe consider necessary in order to be able to sell a deal at home
> (particularly given that the US has already lost most of its industrial base
> and has had whole cities/states gutted).  Competition from China being a if
> not the principle concern in manufacturing.
>>
>> also i think it is easy to condemn other countries for such behavior, but
>> when masses of people are unemployed and homeless, despite the fact that
>> rich manufacturers and agribusiness are raking in the billions, the issue
>> is slightly more complex then US and Europe are bad.
>
> Slightly...
>
> The geometry of interest alignments and misalignments across countries and
> sectors may have become unworkable for a universal model.  There's a lot of
> concern in Geneva trade circles that the old architecture of broad based
> multilateral liberalization cannot deepen, and that discriminatory bilateral
> and plurilateral deals will be the default.
>
>> also when the business leaders in the developing world are exploiting
>> their workers and using child labor in many case to enable their
>> capitalists to get rich, were does the motivation come from?
>>
>> this your country bad, my country good stuff is not going to get us very
>> far - though it does help the owners of our repspective countries a bunch.
>
> and feels good.
>
> BTW there are some important implications for people interested in IG too.
> There's a whole complex of negotiations concerning telecom, Internet
> commerce, and ICT-related goods and services that have been underway for
> over a decade, since before the Doha Round began.  If the round fails the
> bits of interest to key industries will become the focus of renewed efforts
> to cut exclusive deals, the moratorium on applying customs duties to
> cross-border intangile transactions probably goes out the window, and so on.
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  5 03:41:23 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
Message-ID: <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear IGC Memebrs,
 
With reference to this discussion thread, I appreciate the statement (which is being referred as Global Governance) of the former president Clinton regarding the policies which resulted the farmers off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself. This statement is regarding the reduction of tariffs on rice imports, which reduced the rice prices in Haiti. This also provided short time benefit to the Haiti People to buy food on lower prices.
 
But how may policies reflected bad and how much lessons are learned to not to repeat in favor of the other world.
 
Are they going to charge higher tariffs and prices from the Haiti rice importers (onward) to create the stability, self sufficiency and to encourage local farmers to produce more rice crop? Have they returned back from the crises of natural disaster which happened in Jan 10? Are they self sufficient to decide and to afford grow the crop to full fill they requirements of the nation? 
 
The success of a nation is hidden in this truth to reduced their needs and only depend on the inland production, resources and skills. If all the developing countries follow this policy, they will become self sufficient.
However, Haiti has faced Natural Disaster and the remaining world has to support and help them and to promote them for their re-establishment. At this stage the trade policies should be totally relaxed for them.
1.      Do you know how much food, grains, wheat and rice are through away just to maintain the Consumer Prices,  
instead of helping poor people of the world, “What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year url ref. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/what-a-waste-britain-throws-away-16310bn-of-food-every-year-822809.html”.
 
It was batter to offer Haiti Farmers to produce food grains, wheat and rice to export and this movement could be strengthen by giving them export orders in advance to become biggest rice exporters of the world.
 
Regards
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is IMHO a
subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
329_pf.html

Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"

During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it
impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced farmers
off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.

"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not
worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti - told
the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice
crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else."

Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none in
Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency report
that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report from
Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world leaders
are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries dependent
on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that poor
countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by rebuilding
their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming, and that
has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."

Neo-liberal policies forced on Haiti

The Clinton administration forced Jean Bertrand Aristide to agree to cut
rice tariffs drastically when the US restored the Haitian president to power
in October 1994. Aristide, Haiti´s first democratically elected president,
had been overthrown by a US-backed military coup in 1991. In return for $770
million in international loans and aid, Aristide was required to agree to a
business-friendly "structural adjustment" program that aside from cutting
food tariffs, also included freezing the minimum wage, cutting the size of
the civil service and privatizing public utilities. (Aristide annoyed the US
by being slow to implement such policies making Bill Clinton´s apology this
month all the more surprising.)

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
________________________________
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Fri, 2 April, 2010 20:57:09
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd World
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/e941b3f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Apr  5 04:48:42 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:48:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk>

In message <179770.88840.qm at web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, at 00:41:23 on 
Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> writes
>1.      Do you know how much food, grains, wheat and rice are 
>through away just to maintain the Consumer Prices,  

This probably refers to (eg) various EU <foodstuff> mountains, which are 
a serious intergovernmental issue.

>instead of helping poor people of the world, “What a waste: Britain 
>throws away £10bn of food every year url ref. 
>http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/what-a-waste
>-britain-throws-away-16310bn-of-food-every-year-822809.html”.

But this is something entirely different. It refers to un-used food 
which is thrown into the garbage bin by individual UK households, at the 
rate of about £1 a day per household.

It's mainly (only 15% was still "in-date") perishable food which is no 
longer fit for consumption - and bad planning in the household has meant 
it wasn't used before growing a coating of mold, or being inadvertently 
kept on the shelf until after the published expiry date.

90% of the food they buy doesn't suffer this fate, and perhaps a better 
way to leave more food for the rest of the world is to cut overall 
consumption by 10%, especially those items air-freighted with vast 
carbon footprints from the four corners of the globe.

So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just now, 
I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco, 
expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking 
mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do - not 
buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop), and who 
should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan 
consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces, taking 
with it the wholesale price.
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Apr  5 04:51:02 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:51:02 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>

On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
> so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
> discourse.

Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for the MAG's consideration by the 15th.

WORKSHOP 1
==========

Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World

Objective:
A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.

With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.

Format:
A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.

Organisers:
Internet Governance Caucus
[ISOC?]
[OECD?]

Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm


WORKSHOP 2
==========
Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015

Objective:
This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.

In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?

Format:
The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.

Organisers:
Internet Governance Caucus
[Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
[Government of France?]
[Cisco?]

Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr  5 06:45:34 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:15:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4BB9BF4E.7050106@itforchange.net>

Regarding proposed workshop one, since 'revolutionary' is normally not 
associated with 'governance', may I suggest that we just look at 'Key IG 
issues that specifically impact developing countries most" or something 
like that. It will more or less constitute the 'development agenda in 
IG' or 'IG for development', which is a main session theme. So this 
workshop could kind of prepare us towards the main session.



regarding proposed workshop two

the stock taking session this time would not visit the proceedings of 
the ongoing IGF, as has been the practise so far, but visit the general 
IG scene over the last five years of IGF's existence. So this proposed 
IGF workshop too can prepare us towards this main session.

Quoting from the program paper

            _Taking stock of Internet governance and the way forward _


                  o

                    Looking at where we were five years ago on the main
                    themes and where we are now on those themes.

                  o

                    How has Internet governance globally advanced over
                    the five years of the IGF?

                  o

                    Capacity building; where were we five years ago and
                    where are we now?


Parminder


Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>   
>> Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
>> so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
>> discourse.
>>     
>
> Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>
> WORKSHOP 1
> ==========
>
> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>
> Objective:
> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>
> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.
>
> Format:
> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [ISOC?]
> [OECD?]
>
> Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>
>
> WORKSHOP 2
> ==========
> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>
> Objective:
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.
>
> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?
>
> Format:
> The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
> [Government of France?]
> [Cisco?]
>
> Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/a405cb3d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Apr  5 07:11:44 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 07:11:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <46E54C74-5A81-4C8D-A141-D1CF60CB283B@arin.net>

Milton - 

 What I said is that theoretical ideal markets can be fragile
 in the face of discontiguous events...  The classic economic
 answer that "it will just stabilize under the new conditions" 
 doesn't address the human condition during such transitions.

 I'd ask that you exercise more care in paraphrasing my views.

Thanks,
/John

On Apr 4, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> ...
> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
> 
> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
> also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
> discontiguous events).
> 
> /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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 07:17:34 2010
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 06:47:34 -0430
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> 
	<701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> 
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 
	<p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <z2r808a83f61004050417hd2cacb8azec0736b7ea9e6d7d@mail.gmail.com>

The two Workshop Proposals are excellent.

Perhaps the only recommendation would be to slightly modify the format of
the 1st Proposal by opening up to accept "revolutionary ideas" for
discussion PRIOR to the workshop commencement from any and all who would
like to contribute (using any or all means of online communication) and to
develop specific categories based on these ideas (and their likely trends or
similarities) for Workshop moderation  ... this would likely lead to not
only a more organized and focused workshop, but also promote wider
involvement of all stakeholders (not physically present at the workshop) in
addition to those who would normally participate remotely.

Rgds,

Tracy

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
> > Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
> > so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
> > discourse.
>
> Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, there is
> very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, but here are the
> two workshop proposals that are currently on the table for discussion, the
> second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please provide any comments on these so
> that we can submit them both for the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>
> WORKSHOP 1
> ==========
>
> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the
> Developing World
>
> Objective:
> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive
> ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world
> utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and
> developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim
> Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing
> concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake
> crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>
> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop
> will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the
> changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting
> identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since
> presented.
>
> Format:
> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be
> 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or
> revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will
> also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under
> various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [ISOC?]
> [OECD?]
>
> Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>
>
> WORKSHOP 2
> ==========
> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and
> looking forward to WSIS 2015
>
> Objective:
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural
> approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance
> over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives
> about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case
> reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full
> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and
> international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.
>
> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005
> when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society
> (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be
> asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were
> made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for
> revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two
> summits?
>
> Format:
> The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief
> presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including
> academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
> [Government of France?]
> [Cisco?]
>
> Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur 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
>
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/7bdb0143/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From email at hakik.org  Mon Apr  5 07:16:27 2010
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:16:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org>
 <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160>
 <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com>
 <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20100405111859.74BD390FFC@npogroups.org>

My tiny responses are interleaved below:

At 09:51 AM 4/5/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
> > Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
> > so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
> > discourse.
>
>Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, 
>there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, 
>but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the 
>table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please 
>provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for 
>the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>
>WORKSHOP 1
>==========
>
>Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change 
>the Developing World
>
>Objective:
>A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share 
>positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the 
>developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for 
>both developed and developing world participants. An example may be 
>the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to 
>the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on 
>the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be 
>Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>
>With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the 
>workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this 
>venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at 
>the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact 
>over the past 12 months since presented.
>
>Format:
>A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format 
>will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an 
>existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions 
>of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded 
>and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over 
>the following year.
>
>Organisers:
>Internet Governance Caucus
>[ISOC?]
>[OECD?]
>
>Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>
>
>WORKSHOP 2
>==========
>Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, 
>and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>
>Objective:
>This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural 
>approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet 
>governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of 
>various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each 
>approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process 
>criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the 
>private sector, civil society, and international organizations in 
>Internet governance arrangements.

.. focusing policies, legislations and applications.


>In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 
>2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the 
>Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting 
>in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions 
>about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made 
>today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will 
>the role of private actors differ between the two summits?

Incorporation of success cases are essential and at the same time, 
intricate issues of failures need to be revealed.


Best regards,
Hakik



>Format:
>The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with 
>brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups 
>(including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.
>
>Organisers:
>Internet Governance Caucus
>[Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
>[Government of France?]
>[Cisco?]
>
>Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm
>Project Coordinator
>Consumers International
>Kuala Lumpur 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
>
>CI is 50
>Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer 
>movement in 2010.
>Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
>consumer rights around the world.
>http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
>Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless 
>necessary.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 08:32:14 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:32:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> 
	<701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> 
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 
	<p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <y2lf65fb55e1004050532kb2c5af6ei81455a0f8ebe49c5@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>> Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
>> so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
>> discourse.
>
> Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>
> WORKSHOP 1
> ==========
>
> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World

These seem to be about Internet ideas, not IG ideas. This one should
be scrapped IMO.

>
> Objective:
> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>
> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.
>
> Format:
> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [ISOC?]
> [OECD?]
>
> Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>
>
> WORKSHOP 2
> ==========
> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015

While this one is about IG, it looks like a dog's breakfast to me.

Can we focus on the real, current and pressing IG issues we see
everyday instead of some la-di-da "what if" nonsense??

Seriously, what IG decisions were made in 2005?  The IGF can't really
be desvribed as an IG decision, can it?  If you want this thing to be
meaningful and relevant, which many seem to want, then you have to
make it meaningful and relevant.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Apr  5 09:04:00 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:04:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org>
 <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160>
 <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com>
 <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <XkhESk3A$duLFAnT@perry.co.uk>

In message <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E at ciroap.org>, at 
18:51:02 on Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes
>Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change
>the Developing World
>
>Objective:
>A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive
>ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world
>utilizing the Internet.

Isn't IG normally understood to be "Governance of the Internet" rather 
than "Governance by the Internet"?
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  5 09:34:11 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 06:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <782499.7312.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Roland Perrym yes you are right that this given url is seperate to the context of this statement.
I wan to quote other reference regarding dumping millions of tons of surplus wheat into the ocean.
Thanks to point out.
Imran

________________________________
From: Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Mon, 5 April, 2010 13:48:42
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd World

In message <179770.88840.qm at web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, at 00:41:23 on Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> writes
> 1.      Do you know how much food, grains, wheat and rice are through away just to maintain the Consumer Prices,  

This probably refers to (eg) various EU <foodstuff> mountains, which are a serious intergovernmental issue.

> instead of helping poor people of the world, “What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year url ref. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/what-a-waste
> -britain-throws-away-16310bn-of-food-every-year-822809.html”.

But this is something entirely different. It refers to un-used food which is thrown into the garbage bin by individual UK households, at the rate of about £1 a day per household.

It's mainly (only 15% was still "in-date") perishable food which is no longer fit for consumption - and bad planning in the household has meant it wasn't used before growing a coating of mold, or being inadvertently kept on the shelf until after the published expiry date.

90% of the food they buy doesn't suffer this fate, and perhaps a better way to leave more food for the rest of the world is to cut overall consumption by 10%, especially those items air-freighted with vast carbon footprints from the four corners of the globe.

So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just now, I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco, expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do - not buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop), and who should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces, taking with it the wholesale price.
-- 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/67232056/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 09:38:28 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 16:38:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control of internet resources.


Sorry to puncture your gas bag yet again, but to be precise, ARIN does
NOT have "centralized control of Internet resources".  Arin does
distribution of Internet number resources in Canada, many Caribbean
and North Atlantic islands, and the United States.  IANA is the root
of Internet resources.

If you truly wanted competition in Internet resources, and the
abolition of centralised registries, then you'd have to argue that the
IANA should have competition in doling out IP addresses at the root
level.

There are natural monopolies in this world, you just have to accept that fact.

BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
in re: IP address distribution issues.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 10:31:24 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:31:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <4BB9BF4E.7050106@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> 
	<701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> 
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 
	<p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9BF4E.7050106@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <x2secb172de1004050731oc3cdafc3k8e7a3fed7d22af92@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,


I can divide idea of Parminder which joined the proposal of Jeremy and
clarified by Jean Louis Fullsack. A retrospective analysis can enable us to
measure the way accomplished region by region.

On this point, I propose that GAID can be also associated in this analysis
as well the WSIS stocktaking platform. From this retrospective analysis, we
can come out the forces and weaknesses of all the problems discussed at the
time of all IGF forum in order to define a diary which will take into
account the regional concerns.

It should be recognized that on this point, some areas remained more
constant than others to have to respect their agenda from 2003 to date.

To summarize my idea, I will say  it is necessary to go from  retrospective
towards prospective for a better perspective.





SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/4/5 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>  Regarding proposed workshop one, since 'revolutionary' is normally not
> associated with 'governance', may I suggest that we just look at 'Key IG
> issues that specifically impact developing countries most" or something like
> that. It will more or less constitute the 'development agenda in IG' or 'IG
> for development', which is a main session theme. So this workshop could kind
> of prepare us towards the main session.
>
>
>
> regarding proposed workshop two
>
> the stock taking session this time would not visit the proceedings of the
> ongoing IGF, as has been the practise so far,  but visit the general IG
> scene over the last five years of IGF's existence. So this proposed IGF
> workshop too can prepare us towards this main session.
>
> Quoting from the program paper
>
>   *Taking stock of Internet governance and the way forward *
>
>
>
>     -
>
>       Looking at where we were five years ago on the main themes and where
>       we are now on those themes.
>        -
>
>       How has Internet governance globally advanced over the five years of
>       the IGF?
>        -
>
>       Capacity building; where were we five years ago and where are we
>       now?
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>
>
>  Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
> so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
> discourse.
>
>
>  Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>
> WORKSHOP 1
> ==========
>
> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>
> Objective:
> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>
> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.
>
> Format:
> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [ISOC?]
> [OECD?]
>
> Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>
>
> WORKSHOP 2
> ==========
> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>
> Objective:
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.
>
> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?
>
> Format:
> The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
> [Government of France?]
> [Cisco?]
>
> Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/f0b1ee00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr  5 09:09:07 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:39:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net>

I suggest that we get into deeper IP and Internet debates, which 
represent some of the most hotly contested issues today, and in which 
area a lot of policy work is going on (ACTA for instance)

Can we hold a workshop on ' Transnational enforcement of a new 
information order -- Issues of rights and democracy'. (tentative title)

Basically we will discuss issues that have come up around ACTA (for 
instance see the latest posting on IP watch at 
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=10061 ) as the main focus. However 
some other issues may also come up - like Google - China stand-off, 
Google's appeal to US gov to consider global information flows as a 
trade issue and use trade related enforcements in this area, Google and 
others cutting off or limiting their services to countries on US's trade 
sanctions list (trade embargo issues and IG is mentioned in the Vilnius 
program document), non availability of major online payment systems in 
countries like Pakistan etc .....

The attempt here is to move beyond the focus on governance of the basic 
technical/ logical infrastructure (ICANN etc) also to the governance of 
the emerging global information infrastructure. (At a still different 
level, though connected, is the governance of the social interactions/ 
networking infrastructure, but that is not something this workshop will 
get into)

The above is just illustrative of the proposed scope of the workshop. 
Will try and put up a short write up for it separately. Parminder



Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
>   
>> Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
>> so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
>> discourse.
>>     
>
> Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>
> WORKSHOP 1
> ==========
>
> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>
> Objective:
> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>
> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.
>
> Format:
> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [ISOC?]
> [OECD?]
>
> Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>
>
> WORKSHOP 2
> ==========
> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>
> Objective:
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.
>
> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?
>
> Format:
> The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.
>
> Organisers:
> Internet Governance Caucus
> [Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
> [Government of France?]
> [Cisco?]
>
> Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/ad261a27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Apr  5 13:20:08 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:20:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>




> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just now, 
> I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco, 
> expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking 
> mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do - not 
> buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop), 

You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without 
losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by 
putting them under hot water.

and who
> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan 
> consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces, taking 
> with it the wholesale price.

Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an 
either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce 
and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding long 
distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or 
organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly 
also one.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Apr  5 13:46:05 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:46:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk>
 <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <eG2mqhAdHiuLFAUn@perry.co.uk>

In message <4BBA1BC8.60904 at wzb.eu>, at 18:20:08 on Mon, 5 Apr 2010, 
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes

>> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just 
>>now,  I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from 
>>Morocco,  expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some 
>>interesting looking  mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So 
>>what should I do - not  buy them again (smaller packets not available 
>>in that shop),
>
>You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without 
>losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by 
>putting them under hot water.

I never thought about that. Good suggestion.

>and who
>> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan 
>>consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces, 
>>taking  with it the wholesale price.
>
>Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers?

I suspect the average Moroccan farmer (as consumer) eats fewer chillies 
than the average Moroccan farmer (as supplier) grows. By many orders of 
magnitude.

>I wonder if this is really an either/ or situation. Besides, there 
>might be good reasons to produce and buy food locally even if this 
>implies higher prices. Avoiding long distant transport, might be one,

I mentioned that already. But most of these "exotic" crops are not grown 
locally to where I live. I don't think I even saw a fresh chilli until I 
was in my twenties, and people had started to import them.

>desirable qualities such as taste or organic production methods might 
>be reasons and poverty is certainly also one.

The main thing driving international trade in farm produce would appear 
to be availability throughout the year. I'm old enough to remember when 
strawberries were a seasonal crop for about three weeks in June. Now you 
can buy them all year round.
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 13:54:32 2010
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:54:32 -0300
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <ecb172de1003230111n4b332572j1c7197a94f3aef93@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org>
	 <ecb172de1003230111n4b332572j1c7197a94f3aef93@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <x2y4ca4162f1004051054sdfc1c96cm9cb0d1ea22a5acd3@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I would like to be considered for the "successes and failures on IG....". I
don´t know exactly the name of this panel proposal as it has change through
this debate. This is a core issue in the PhD I am starting now, and I would
like to present a paper on the Latin American context related to the
retrospective-prospective-perspective analysis that is being proposed for
this panel.

Please tell me if this is posssible, and how to contribute at this
formulation stage, because this line of debate is getting a little confused.

At the same time I would like to ask to all LA members here to get in
contact with me in order to prepare the paper in a collaborative way.

Thanks in advance,
Roxana



2010/3/23 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>

> positive ideas
>
> Some possible ideas:
>
>
>     - Messages from the IGF
>    - Looking forward to WSIS 2015
>    - Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 :
>    International and regional level
>
>
>
>
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>                           +243811980914
> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
> niveau.
>
>
> 2010/3/22 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>
>>   Here is a separate thread for discussion of workshop proposals for
>> Vilnius.  According to Ginger's last mail the deadline is 30 April, though
>> the IGF Web site says 15 April 2010.  In any case, it would be best for us
>> to work towards the earlier deadline.
>>
>> Some possible ideas:
>>
>>
>>    - Messages from the IGF
>>    - Looking forward to WSIS 2015
>>    - Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010
>>
>>    --
>>
>> *Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator*
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur 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
>> *CI is 50*
>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
>> 2010.
>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
>> rights around the world.
>> *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50*
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/ad40339d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  5 15:02:26 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: Free Trade is Harmful to 3rd World
Message-ID: <218374.97664.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thank you Jeanette, that is good idea for  
Fruit and vegetables (as they have limited shelf life). 

We may found many reason and methods to preserve them. 

However, surplus quantity of food or thing of daily use can be shared among others.

Similarly, we also have surplus computers and accessories which becomes useless once these are replaced with new versions, new models or when its warranty support is finished. 

So, can someone provide a web portal for kind donations of surplus or old computer related equipments & accessories such as:
network switches, wireless access points, hosting servers, router and firewalls, notebooks, cables, racks, keyboard and mouse, monitors or displays, speakers, projectors and cameras, printer and scanners, Hard Disks and CD Drives etc.  
There should be e-location of virtual warehouse and its service should be on the basis of first come first serve. 

I give an example of mine, I have one CRT monitor, 2 CPUs without HDs, one Big Size Laser Printer, one DSL modem, three sets of Keyboard and mouse, one CD Drive, one CD Writer and Flash Memory 512Kb. 

These items are spare by replacing new equipment and accessories e.g. I changed crt monitor with LCD, CD-Writer with DvD-Writer, HP5Si printer and Acer scanner with Color OfficeJet, similarly 512Kb USB Flash memory is replaced with 4GB USB-2 memory.

The proposed portal will provide everyone like me as a donner to upload specs and quantities of all donate-able items and locations. 

Now, if any needy person, student or school boy of the same region post his demand with his complete address, I will post required items to him as kind donation once I really found him needy.

This portal may have a comprehensive selection mechanism to manage and control. If properly managed, hundred of thousands items would be able to deliver to needy people and students.
This will also help to overcome on digital divide.

The same kind of portal can be used to provide donation of lots (pellets) of spare equipments, accessories and components, old books related to training about Computers, Networks, Programming and graphic designing and only for under developed countries to be distributed free of cost just at the cost of one way shipping expenses. 

Thanks

Imran Ahmed Shah

On Mon Apr 5th, 2010 10:20 PM PKT Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>
>
>
>> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just now, I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco, expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do - not buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop), 
>
>You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by putting them under hot water.
>
>and who
>> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces, taking with it the wholesale price.
>
>Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding long distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly also one.
>
>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
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Apr  5 15:35:24 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:35:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: Free Trade is Harmful to 3rd World
In-Reply-To: <218374.97664.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <218374.97664.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <PXuyuPD8tjuLFAHN@perry.co.uk>

In message <218374.97664.qm at web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, at 12:02:26 on 
Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> writes
>So, can someone provide a web portal for kind donations of surplus or
>old computer related equipments

There's scheme which operates by email, already doing something very 
similar to what you ask for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 15:37:36 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:37:36 -0700
Subject: FW: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
Message-ID: <3E8D341A33FF43FA8BC4E2B664B410F1@userPC>

Mueller:
 
The point was that Clinton was (unthinkingly) following the neo-liberal
orthodoxy and "inadvertently" destroyed the Haitian small holder rice
economy.  The recognition that this had taken place has been around in
thoughtful circles for years (as of course had the impacts of the
destruction of a subsistence rice (small holder) economy with no provision
or capacity for its replacement), but it took a crisis for Clinton to
recognize this and my hat off to him for being big enough to recognize and
learn from his mistakes.
 
And of course, the target for Haiti is not (realistically in the near term)
a developed country standard of living but should be at least significant
reductions in infant mortality, child malnutrition, and adult pauperization
all of which were exacerbated and precipitated by the "free marketeers" let
loose by Clinton and his co-conspirators in the World Bank, the IMF etc.etc.
 
M
 
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, michael
gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>


Gurstein:
Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries" he
stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have been
- some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the land"
in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development
process.

Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done to
the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade
protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to
pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman
farmers and self-sufficiency?

While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake
disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local sources
of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess people
will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political
agenda.

The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be "self-sufficient"
in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed
country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense American
politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This plays
well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter nonsense and
will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with other countries
and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an artificial
"national" self-sufficiency?

Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil, food,
etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy a
world of good.

To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade
policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his
very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control
of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....

--MM


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>
> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
> also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
> discontiguous events).
>
> /John
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
> > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
> IMHO a
> > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
> > 329_pf.html
> >
> > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> >
> > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
> > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
> made it
> > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
> farmers
> > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
> >
> > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
> not
> > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
> told
> > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
> > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
> rice
> > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
> else."
> >
> > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
> in
> > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
> report
> > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
> from
> > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
> leaders
> > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
> dependent
> > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
> poor
> > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
> rebuilding
> > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
> > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
> and that
> > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
> > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/a0dfef58/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From email at hakik.org  Mon Apr  5 15:50:35 2010
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:50:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <x2y4ca4162f1004051054sdfc1c96cm9cb0d1ea22a5acd3@mail.gmail
 .com>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org>
 <ecb172de1003230111n4b332572j1c7197a94f3aef93@mail.gmail.com>
 <x2y4ca4162f1004051054sdfc1c96cm9cb0d1ea22a5acd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100405195104.E78C0905A8@npogroups.org>

Like to contribute for the Workshop 2, whatever 
the name and title it may get at the final stage, 
but would like to be involved in the successes and failures on IG issues.

Thanking you,
Hakik



At 18:54 05-04-2010, Roxana Goldstein wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>I would like to be considered for the "successes 
>and failures on IG....". I don´t know exactly 
>the name of this panel proposal as it has change 
>through this debate. This is a core issue in the 
>PhD I am starting now, and I would like to 
>present a paper on the Latin American context 
>related to the 
>retrospective-prospective-perspective analysis 
>that is being proposed for this panel.
>
>Please tell me if this is posssible, and how to 
>contribute at this formulation stage, because 
>this line of debate is getting a little confused.
>
>At the same time I would like to ask to all LA 
>members here to get in contact with me in order 
>to prepare the paper in a collaborative way.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Roxana
>
>
>
>2010/3/23 Baudouin SCHOMBE <<mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>b.schombe at gmail.com>
>positive ideas
>
>Some possible ideas:
>
>Messages from the IGF
>Looking forward to WSIS 2015
>Successes and failures of Internet governance, 
>1995 - 2010 : International and regional level
>
>
>
>
>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>
>Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>                           +243811980914
>email:                   <mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>b.schombe at gmail.com
>blog: 
><http://akimambo.unblog.fr/>http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau.
>
>
>2010/3/22 Jeremy Malcolm <<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>jeremy at ciroap.org>
>Here is a separate thread for discussion of 
>workshop proposals for Vilnius.  According to 
>Ginger's last mail the deadline is 30 April, 
>though the IGF Web site says 15 April 2010.  In 
>any case, it would be best for us to work towards the earlier deadline.
>
>Some possible ideas:
>
>Messages from the IGF
>Looking forward to WSIS 2015
>Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010
>--
>
>Jeremy Malcolm
>Project Coordinator
>Consumers International
>Kuala Lumpur 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
>CI is 50
>Consumers International marks 50 years of the 
>global consumer movement in 2010.
>Celebrate with us as we continue to support, 
>promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
><http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
>Read our 
><http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>email 
>confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> 
><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: 
><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> 
><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: 
><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/545b232e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 19:54:35 2010
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:54:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Milton,

I come from a developing country -Argentina-, and from a region full of
underdeveloped sectors -Latin America-.

There are many studies -economical, political, sociological, cultural, etc-,
carried out by the most prominent international organisations and
institutions such as ECLAC, IADB, etc. which affirm and conclude and advice
on the catastrofic impacts that market liberalisation  policies have had in
the region. Meaning this that perhaps liberalisation is not bad in itself,
but that the policies that have been pushed in the region -under the
globalisation process-, have produced very bad impacts specially on human
development.

I know that this is off topic for the list, so I suggest that I can send you
many documents that support what I am saying here to your private mail, if
you wish.

Best regards,
Roxana





2010/4/4 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

> Gurstein:
> Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries" he
> stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have been
> - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the land"
> in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development
> process.
>
> Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done to
> the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade
> protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to
> pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman
> farmers and self-sufficiency?
>
> While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake
> disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local sources
> of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess people
> will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political
> agenda.
>
> The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be "self-sufficient"
> in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed
> country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense American
> politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This plays
> well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter nonsense and
> will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with other countries
> and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an artificial
> "national" self-sufficiency?
>
> Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil, food,
> etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy a
> world of good.
>
> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade
> policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his
> very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control
> of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....
>
> --MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
> > To: michael gurstein
> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
> >
> > Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
> > distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
> > a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
> > also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
> > potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
> > discontiguous events).
> >
> > /John
> >
> >
> > On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> >
> > > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
> > > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
> > IMHO a
> > > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> > >
> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> > dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
> > > 329_pf.html
> > >
> > > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> > >
> > > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
> > > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
> > made it
> > > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
> > farmers
> > > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
> > >
> > > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
> > not
> > > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
> > told
> > > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
> > > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
> > rice
> > > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
> > else."
> > >
> > > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
> > in
> > > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
> > report
> > > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
> > from
> > > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
> > leaders
> > > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
> > dependent
> > > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
> > poor
> > > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
> > rebuilding
> > > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
> > > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
> > and that
> > > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
> > > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/4735602c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 20:28:36 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:28:36 +1200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <j2x83b95841004051728gd7e5a1c7mb43992e602eb8ad@mail.gmail.com>

Roxanna,

Could you please send me these papers and documents as well.

On 4/6/10, Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Milton,
>
> I come from a developing country -Argentina-, and from a region full of
> underdeveloped sectors -Latin America-.
>
> There are many studies -economical, political, sociological, cultural, etc-,
> carried out by the most prominent international organisations and
> institutions such as ECLAC, IADB, etc. which affirm and conclude and advice
> on the catastrofic impacts that market liberalisation  policies have had in
> the region. Meaning this that perhaps liberalisation is not bad in itself,
> but that the policies that have been pushed in the region -under the
> globalisation process-, have produced very bad impacts specially on human
> development.
>
> I know that this is off topic for the list, so I suggest that I can send you
> many documents that support what I am saying here to your private mail, if
> you wish.
>
> Best regards,
> Roxana
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/4/4 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>
>> Gurstein:
>> Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries"
>> he
>> stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have
>> been
>> - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the land"
>> in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development
>> process.
>>
>> Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done
>> to
>> the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade
>> protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to
>> pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman
>> farmers and self-sufficiency?
>>
>> While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake
>> disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local
>> sources
>> of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess people
>> will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political
>> agenda.
>>
>> The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be
>> "self-sufficient"
>> in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed
>> country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense American
>> politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This
>> plays
>> well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter nonsense
>> and
>> will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with other
>> countries
>> and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an artificial
>> "national" self-sufficiency?
>>
>> Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil,
>> food,
>> etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy a
>> world of good.
>>
>> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade
>> policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits
>> his
>> very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control
>> of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....
>>
>> --MM
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
>> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
>> > To: michael gurstein
>> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>> >
>> > Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
>> > distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
>> > a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
>> > also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
>> > potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
>> > discontiguous events).
>> >
>> > /John
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> >
>> > > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
>> > > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
>> > IMHO a
>> > > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> > dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
>> > > 329_pf.html
>> > >
>> > > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>> > >
>> > > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
>> > > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
>> > made it
>> > > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
>> > farmers
>> > > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
>> > >
>> > > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
>> > not
>> > > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
>> > told
>> > > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
>> > > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
>> > rice
>> > > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
>> > else."
>> > >
>> > > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
>> > in
>> > > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
>> > report
>> > > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
>> > from
>> > > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
>> > leaders
>> > > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
>> > dependent
>> > > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
>> > poor
>> > > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
>> > rebuilding
>> > > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
>> > > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
>> > and that
>> > > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
>> > > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Mon Apr  5 20:58:34 2010
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 17:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>  <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>  <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <868684.56030.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

There is also plenty of evidence of the benefits of globalisation to both the developed and developing world. Unfortunately many developed world countries have protectionist policies that mean it's far from fair for those in the developing world.

Countries, especially America, bang on about free trade and develop free trade agreements that do little for anyone but the developing world. America even devises FTAs that are detrimental to partner countries in the developing world!

So it's not just the developing world that suffers from globalisation, but it is the richer and richest countries that devise policies to maximise their advantages to them, and introduce policies to protect inefficient farmers. And hence the poorest countries suffer the most.

David






________________________________
From: Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Sent: Tue, 6 April, 2010 9:54:35 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd


Dear Milton,
 
I come from a developing country -Argentina-, and from a region full of underdeveloped sectors -Latin America-.
 
There are many studies -economical, political, sociological, cultural, etc-, carried out by the most prominent international organisations and institutions such as ECLAC, IADB, etc. which affirm and conclude and advice on the catastrofic impacts that market liberalisation  policies have had in the region. Meaning this that perhaps liberalisation is not bad in itself, but that the policies that have been pushed in the region -under the globalisation process-, have produced very bad impacts specially on human development.
 
I know that this is off topic for the list, so I suggest that I can send you many documents that support what I am saying here to your private mail, if you wish.
 
Best regards,
Roxana
 
 


 
2010/4/4 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

Gurstein:
>Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries" he stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have been - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the land" in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development process.
>
>Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done to the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman farmers and self-sufficiency?
>
>While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local sources of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess people will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political agenda.
>
>The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be "self-sufficient" in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense American politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This plays well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter nonsense and will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with other countries and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an artificial "national" self-sufficiency?
>
>Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil, food, etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy a world of good.
>
>To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....
>
>--MM
> 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
>> To: michael gurstein
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>>
>> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
>>> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
>> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
>> also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
>>> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
>> discontiguous events).
>>
>> /John
>>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>
>> > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
>>> > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
>> IMHO a
>> > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>> >
>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>>> dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
>> > 329_pf.html
>> >
>> > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>> >
>> > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
>>> > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
>> made it
>> > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
>> farmers
>> > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
>>> >
>> > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
>> not
>> > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
>> told
>> > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
>>> > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
>> rice
>> > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
>> else."
>> >
>> > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
>>> in
>> > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
>> report
>> > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
>> from
>> > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
>>> leaders
>> > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
>> dependent
>> > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
>> poor
>> > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
>>> rebuilding
>> > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
>> > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
>> and that
>> > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
>>> > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100405/3d23b685/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Apr  5 23:37:32 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:37:32 +1200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <868684.56030.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <868684.56030.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <w2y83b95841004052037g813dc1eakf8a90e0bbed92903@mail.gmail.com>

David,

There is nothing wrong with globalisation but it is in managing its
infrastructure, trade impasse, and glitches that is the underlying
central issue.
This is why corporate social responsibility where a giant cannot
simply unleash all of its powers but power has to be meted out. This
cannot eventuate from an article or a paper but has to be the result
of a strategic conscious movement of jurisprudence.

Sala


On 4/6/10, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> There is also plenty of evidence of the benefits of globalisation to both
> the developed and developing world. Unfortunately many developed world
> countries have protectionist policies that mean it's far from fair for those
> in the developing world.
>
> Countries, especially America, bang on about free trade and develop free
> trade agreements that do little for anyone but the developing world. America
> even devises FTAs that are detrimental to partner countries in the
> developing world!
>
> So it's not just the developing world that suffers from globalisation, but
> it is the richer and richest countries that devise policies to maximise
> their advantages to them, and introduce policies to protect inefficient
> farmers. And hence the poorest countries suffer the most.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Sent: Tue, 6 April, 2010 9:54:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>
>
> Dear Milton,
>
> I come from a developing country -Argentina-, and from a region full of
> underdeveloped sectors -Latin America-.
>
> There are many studies -economical, political, sociological, cultural, etc-,
> carried out by the most prominent international organisations and
> institutions such as ECLAC, IADB, etc. which affirm and conclude and advice
> on the catastrofic impacts that market liberalisation  policies have had in
> the region. Meaning this that perhaps liberalisation is not bad in itself,
> but that the policies that have been pushed in the region -under the
> globalisation process-, have produced very bad impacts specially on human
> development.
>
> I know that this is off topic for the list, so I suggest that I can send you
> many documents that support what I am saying here to your private mail, if
> you wish.
>
> Best regards,
> Roxana
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/4/4 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>
> Gurstein:
>>Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries" he
>> stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have
>> been - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the
>> land" in every developing economy; typically that's part of the
>> development process.
>>
>>Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done to
>> the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade
>> protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to
>> pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman
>> farmers and self-sufficiency?
>>
>>While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake
>> disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local
>> sources of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I
>> guess people will use anything to milk such things to support their
>> favored political agenda.
>>
>>The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be "self-sufficient"
>> in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed
>> country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense American
>> politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This
>> plays well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter
>> nonsense and will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with
>> other countries and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an
>> artificial "national" self-sufficiency?
>>
>>Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil, food,
>> etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy a
>> world of good.
>>
>>To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade
>> policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits
>> his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized
>> control of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....
>>
>>--MM
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
>>> To: michael gurstein
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>>>
>>> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
>>>> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
>>> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
>>> also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
>>>> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
>>> discontiguous events).
>>>
>>> /John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>> > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
>>>> > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
>>> IMHO a
>>> > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>>>> dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
>>> > 329_pf.html
>>> >
>>> > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>>> >
>>> > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
>>>> > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
>>> made it
>>> > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
>>> farmers
>>> > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
>>>> >
>>> > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
>>> not
>>> > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
>>> told
>>> > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
>>>> > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
>>> rice
>>> > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
>>> else."
>>> >
>>> > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
>>>> in
>>> > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
>>> report
>>> > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
>>> from
>>> > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
>>>> leaders
>>> > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
>>> dependent
>>> > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
>>> poor
>>> > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
>>>> rebuilding
>>> > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
>>> > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
>>> and that
>>> > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
>>>> > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Apr  6 02:33:25 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:33:25 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D08BE21F-391A-4A55-8700-0C56345D6AB8@ciroap.org>

On 05/04/2010, at 11:09 PM, Parminder wrote:

> I suggest that we get into deeper IP and Internet debates, which represent some of the most hotly contested issues today, and in which area a lot of policy work is going on (ACTA for instance)
> 
> Can we hold a workshop on ' Transnational enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy'. (tentative title)
> 
> Basically we will discuss issues that have come up around ACTA (for instance see the latest posting on IP watch at http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=10061  )  as the main focus.

Whilst I'm still not sure if I can make it physically to Vilnius, Consumers International would be interested in co-organising such a workshop.

> However some other issues may also come up - like Google - China stand-off,

This will be difficult to directly address, given the restrictions that the Secretariat has placed on discussions about China (but we must not shy away from it on that account).

> The above is just illustrative of the proposed scope of the workshop. Will try and put up a short write up for it separately. Parminder 


Sounds very worthwhile.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/cc836372/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Apr  6 02:53:27 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:23:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net>

>BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
>in re: IP address distribution issues.

McTim

I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).

In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil 
society and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and 
other questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/ 
performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict 
of interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of 
disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of 
any such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case 
openly discussed, and responded to.

However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have 
tried to discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating 
people in important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet 
policy-making seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly 
taken up the defence such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of 
conflict of interest. Can you please explain the double standards being 
employed by you in this regard.

It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is 
just a possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree 
with your demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have 
defended pertains to people actually occupying key permanent positions 
in Internet policy making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond 
to represent the interests of their employing organisation.

In fact, I have often heard such research/ study contracts with ITU 
mentioned in a hush-hush manner about a couple of civil society persons, 
but when issues regarding various contractual and other - often rather 
deep - relationships with ICANN plus are raised, they are immediately 
brushed aside as non-issues - as acts of narrow minded people involved 
in exclusionary practises (i have heard this term mentioned in this 
regard - Spartan youth club kind of practises :) ).

Parminder

PS: I have mentioned this before but to do so again, I am regularly 
funded by the UN to attend IGF meetings, and also sometimes CSTD and 
other meetings. Our organisation does try to put up as much of our 
financial details  out in the public as possible.


McTim wrote:
> Milton,
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> <snip>
>   
>> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control of internet resources.
>>     
>
>
> Sorry to puncture your gas bag yet again, but to be precise, ARIN does
> NOT have "centralized control of Internet resources".  Arin does
> distribution of Internet number resources in Canada, many Caribbean
> and North Atlantic islands, and the United States.  IANA is the root
> of Internet resources.
>
> If you truly wanted competition in Internet resources, and the
> abolition of centralised registries, then you'd have to argue that the
> IANA should have competition in doling out IP addresses at the root
> level.
>
> There are natural monopolies in this world, you just have to accept that fact.
>
> BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
> disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
> in re: IP address distribution issues.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/894facc5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Apr  6 02:55:34 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:55:34 +1000
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <y2lf65fb55e1004050532kb2c5af6ei81455a0f8ebe49c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org>  <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com>  <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>  <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com>  <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <y2lf65fb55e1004050532kb2c5af6ei81455a0f8ebe49c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0CCE4360-DDE7-42C7-8DE9-5FA3AF42A02A@ciroap.org>

On 05/04/2010, at 10:32 PM, McTim wrote:

>> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
> 
> These seem to be about Internet ideas, not IG ideas. This one should
> be scrapped IMO.

That was my concern also, so I added "The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored", and we must make sure that this is the case.  It is apparent from previous meetings that talking about governance only can be a little abstract for many at the IGF.  Personally I think that beginning with a very practical application of the Internet for development is a good way to draw people in to the discussion of its governance implications.

>> WORKSHOP 2
>> ==========
>> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
> 
> While this one is about IG, it looks like a dog's breakfast to me.

Well, it was originally two separate workshops so I can take that criticism on board. Perhaps we could drop the WSIS 2015 from the title, and just address this part in one speaker's presentation.

> Can we focus on the real, current and pressing IG issues we see
> everyday instead of some la-di-da "what if" nonsense??

What would you include, within the scope of the workshop title?

> Seriously, what IG decisions were made in 2005?  The IGF can't really
> be desvribed as an IG decision, can it?  If you want this thing to be
> meaningful and relevant, which many seem to want, then you have to
> make it meaningful and relevant.

Sure the formation of the IGF was an IG decision.  Doing nothing at all would have been an IG decision, too.  Not the right one, but still a decision.

Since it seems to be a popular idea, I think we should try to refine this workshop proposal to overcome your concerns.  Perhaps you, Hakikur, Roxana and others who have commented, could propose specific text to improve what we already have below:

This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.

In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 03:36:08 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:36:08 +0300
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <0CCE4360-DDE7-42C7-8DE9-5FA3AF42A02A@ciroap.org>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> 
	<701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> 
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 
	<p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <y2lf65fb55e1004050532kb2c5af6ei81455a0f8ebe49c5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<0CCE4360-DDE7-42C7-8DE9-5FA3AF42A02A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <z2wf65fb55e1004060036gd0010d0bjd7691839b8e451d7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 05/04/2010, at 10:32 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>>> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>>
>> These seem to be about Internet ideas, not IG ideas. This one should
>> be scrapped IMO.
>
> That was my concern also, so I added "The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored", and we must make sure that this is the case.

I don't see any IG dimensions, there may be some, but it's a
far-fetched thing IMO.  I would much prefer the IGF to focus on
strictly IG issues.


  It is apparent from previous meetings that talking about governance
only can be a little abstract for many at the IGF.  Personally I think
that beginning with a very practical application of the Internet for
development is a good way to draw people in to the discussion of its
governance implications.
>
>>> WORKSHOP 2
>>> ==========
>>> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>>
>> While this one is about IG, it looks like a dog's breakfast to me.
>
> Well, it was originally two separate workshops so I can take that criticism on board. Perhaps we could drop the WSIS 2015 from the title, and just address this part in one speaker's presentation.
>
>> Can we focus on the real, current and pressing IG issues we see
>> everyday instead of some la-di-da "what if" nonsense??
>
> What would you include, within the scope of the workshop title?

How about the recent DNS hijacking from the rootserver node located in
China?  (I don't care what the Secretariat thinks frankly)  If we
can't talk about the actual ongoing issues in IG, then let's not have
an IGF anymore!

>
>> Seriously, what IG decisions were made in 2005?  The IGF can't really
>> be desvribed as an IG decision, can it?  If you want this thing to be
>> meaningful and relevant, which many seem to want, then you have to
>> make it meaningful and relevant.
>
> Sure the formation of the IGF was an IG decision.

Wassn't at all IG, just talking about IG, not actual IG.

 Doing nothing at all would have been an IG decision, too.  Not the
right one, but still a decision.
>
> Since it seems to be a popular idea, I think we should try to refine this workshop proposal to overcome your concerns.  Perhaps you, Hakikur, Roxana and others who have commented, could propose specific text to improve what we already have below:
>
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.

I'd be happy if it was just this 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 03:43:40 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:43:40 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>>disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
>>in re: IP address distribution issues.
>
> McTim
>
> I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
>
> In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
> and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
> questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
> performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
> interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
> disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
> such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
> discussed, and responded to.
>
> However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
> discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
> important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet policy-making
> seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
> such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
> you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
> regard.

As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
(ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs.  At least
according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
find online.



>
> It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
> possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
> demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
> to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
> making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
> interests of their employing organisation.


exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs.  Just as you
represent yours.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Apr  6 05:21:00 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:51:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net>

McTim

You seriously believe ICANN is a civil society organisation!?

Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your 
email to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is  a 
'natural monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is 
definitionally a social sub-system denoting pluralism, 
non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly etc.... How could an organisation do a 
'natural monopoly' function and be civil society?

Parminder

McTim wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>   
>>> BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>>> disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU 
>>> in re: IP address distribution issues.
>>>       
>> McTim
>>
>> I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
>>
>> In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
>> and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
>> questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
>> performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
>> interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
>> disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
>> such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
>> discussed, and responded to.
>>
>> However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
>> discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
>> important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet policy-making
>> seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
>> such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
>> you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
>> regard.
>>     
>
> As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
> (ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs.  At least
> according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
> find online.
>
>
>
>   
>> It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
>> possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
>> demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
>> to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
>> making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
>> interests of their employing organisation.
>>     
>
>
> exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs.  Just as you
> represent yours.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/277dedbc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  6 05:52:53 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 05:52:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

McTim
This is sleazy. I am not "under contract to ITU." I wrote a research report for them on ip address markets during a 3 month period. The contract ended a year ago. The report obviously told them something they did not want to hear. 

You can't have it both ways - if Mueller is ITU's tool why is he not advocating nationalized internet ip registries? Which is what they obviously want? Why isn't the ITU promoting a TABL strucure implemented by the RIRs, which is what the report I did proposed? 

While we're at it, Roland, are you still under contract to RIPE? Curran, are you still a paid flunky of ARIN? With the implication that you will say and do anything that serves those organization's interests? McTim, let's hear about your consulting contracts and paid speaking gigs with various I* organizations. You get the picture. This is where you're taking the discussion. 

You've really fallen down several notches in my estimation. Total dishonesty and an attempt to use smear tactics. 

For the rest of the list, this is an object lesson in the cult mentality that pervades the so-called Itnernet technical community. If you disagree with them about anything, theny won't even consider funding your research on an IG topic. And if you accept funding from anyone else, you MUST be a paid agent of sinister forces. Catch-22. And oh, it doesn't matter what you say or prove in the reports, they don't read. All that matters is who commissioned it. 

--MM
________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:38 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd

Milton,

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control of internet resources.


Sorry to puncture your gas bag yet again, but to be precise, ARIN does
NOT have "centralized control of Internet resources".  Arin does
distribution of Internet number resources in Canada, many Caribbean
and North Atlantic islands, and the United States.  IANA is the root
of Internet resources.

If you truly wanted competition in Internet resources, and the
abolition of centralised registries, then you'd have to argue that the
IANA should have competition in doling out IP addresses at the root
level.

There are natural monopolies in this world, you just have to accept that fact.

BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
in re: IP address distribution issues.

--
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  6 05:55:27 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 05:55:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <4BB9BF4E.7050106@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org>
 <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160>
 <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com>
 <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>,<4BB9BF4E.7050106@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Here's one vote for keeping the R word in there....helps to shake up the thinking a bit.

--MM
________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Regarding proposed workshop one, since 'revolutionary' is normally not associated with 'governance', may I suggest that we just look at 'Key IG issues that specifically impact WORKSHOP 1
==========

Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/5120cd19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue Apr  6 06:22:15 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:22:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <r+krEdpXtwuLFAx+@perry.co.uk>

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 05:52:53 on Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
writes

>While we're at it, Roland, are you still under contract to RIPE?

I have never made a secret of this.

See http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/roland-perry/0/364/b4 for example.

>With the implication that you will say and do anything that serves
>those organization's interests?

I post here in my personal capacity, of course.
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Apr  6 06:35:05 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:35:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca>

McTim, I undertand your computer programmer approach to recognizing CSs,
but please at least do a small additional step, recognizing there are
major differences (in representation, in actual mission and practices,
in allegiance to certain interests etc) among entities which are
formally registered as non-profits.

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>>> disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
>>> in re: IP address distribution issues.
>> McTim
>>
>> I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
>>
>> In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
>> and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
>> questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
>> performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
>> interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
>> disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
>> such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
>> discussed, and responded to.
>>
>> However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
>> discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
>> important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet policy-making
>> seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
>> such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
>> you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
>> regard.
> 
> As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
> (ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs.  At least
> according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
> find online.
> 
> 
> 
>> It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
>> possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
>> demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
>> to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
>> making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
>> interests of their employing organisation.
> 
> 
> exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs.  Just as you
> represent yours.
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 09:11:02 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:11:02 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <u2pf65fb55e1004060611i1da8d1c0jee3902fec230dba6@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> McTim
> This is sleazy.

It's just full disclosure, I was merely curious as to your motivation.

>I am not "under contract to ITU." I wrote a research report for them on ip address markets during a 3 month period. The contract ended a year ago. The report obviously told them something they did not want to hear.

At least not exactly what some wanted to hear.


>
> You can't have it both ways - if Mueller is ITU's tool why is he not advocating nationalized internet ip registries? Which is what they obviously want? Why isn't the ITU promoting a TABL strucure implemented by the RIRs, which is what the report I did proposed?

Because it's a terrible idea for developing nations probably?

>
> While we're at it, Roland, are you still under contract to RIPE?

He has made that clear recently and in the past.

>Curran, are you still a paid flunky of ARIN?

I would say no, certainly not a flunky...paid, I would hope so.

>With the implication that you will say and do anything that serves those organization's interests? McTim, let's hear about your consulting contracts and paid speaking gigs with various I* organizations.

I've got none at the moment, altho I am thinking of volunteering for
the AfriNIC NomCom, which might pay my way to a meeting or two.  I
haven't had any since I last disclosed to the list ~18 months ago I
think.  My convictions are my own.

>You get the picture. This is where you're taking the discussion.

Not at all, this is where you took it.  For someone so prickly, you've
got pretty thin skin!

>
> You've really fallen down several notches in my estimation. Total dishonesty and an attempt to use smear tactics.

I've never been dishonest on this list, and I just wanted to be clear
on motivation, not at all a smear tactic, simple curiousity.

>
> For the rest of the list, this is an object lesson in the cult mentality that pervades the so-called Itnernet technical community. If you disagree with them about anything, theny won't even consider funding your research on an IG topic.

talk about a smear tactic!

>And if you accept funding from anyone else, you MUST be a paid agent of sinister forces. Catch-22. And oh, it doesn't matter what you say or prove in the reports, they don't read. All that matters is who commissioned it.

Sounds like you have a very big chip on your shoulder about that!

I note that you didn't address my main point, which was the
inconsistency of your arguing for competition on a regional level, but
not at the root.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 09:18:22 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:18:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> McTim, I undertand your computer programmer approach to recognizing CSs,
> but please at least do a small additional step, recognizing there are
> major differences (in representation, in actual mission and practices,
> in allegiance to certain interests etc) among entities which are
> formally registered as non-profits.

Is CGI.br a CS org?  Are you not also part of the Internet technical
community as well?  Do the I*s not all work for the public benefit in
that they are all working to keep the Internet free, open and IG
policy making bottom up, etc?

I know many on this list have had some unpleasant experiences with
ICANN/ISOC, etc and have lost some faith along the way, but that
doesn't mean they are not CS, at least, not according to the LSE, et.
al.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Apr  6 09:41:51 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 06:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <197259.29520.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Again the practice of deciding whether or not a statement is good and of value comes down to who said it -- rather than if the idea is good.  When we say "it is a Nation of Laws and not of men" we say a mouthfull. When instead of hearing a message we see the company a man keeps rather than the truth of the words spoken we do great disservice to logic.

--- On Tue, 4/6/10, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:


From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Cc: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 10:35 AM


McTim, I undertand your computer programmer approach to recognizing CSs,
but please at least do a small additional step, recognizing there are
major differences (in representation, in actual mission and practices,
in allegiance to certain interests etc) among entities which are
formally registered as non-profits.

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>>> disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU
>>> in re: IP address distribution issues.
>> McTim
>>
>> I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
>>
>> In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
>> and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
>> questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
>> performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
>> interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
>> disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
>> such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
>> discussed, and responded to.
>>
>> However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
>> discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
>> important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet policy-making
>> seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
>> such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
>> you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
>> regard.
> 
> As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
> (ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs.  At least
> according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
> find online.
> 
> 
> 
>> It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
>> possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
>> demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
>> to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
>> making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
>> interests of their employing organisation.
> 
> 
> exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs.  Just as you
> represent yours.
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/a78c5648/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Apr  6 09:50:04 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 06:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <408461.755.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Building pro and con balance sheets regarding Free Trade is generally unhealthy because it avoids evaluation on an individual case by case basis. Free Trade does not eradicate greed and avarice or social injustice. Restrictions and taxation do not ensure cultural and national well being. Free Trade is a removal of Governance/artificial controls. All freedoms run the risk of abuse. All abuse runs the risk of romoving freedoms.
But we should never forget that freedom gives a choice to those effected and their choice may be to end a practice that you like.

--- On Mon, 4/5/10, Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 11:54 PM



Dear Milton,
 
I come from a developing country -Argentina-, and from a region full of underdeveloped sectors -Latin America-.
 
There are many studies -economical, political, sociological, cultural, etc-, carried out by the most prominent international organisations and institutions such as ECLAC, IADB, etc. which affirm and conclude and advice on the catastrofic impacts that market liberalisation  policies have had in the region. Meaning this that perhaps liberalisation is not bad in itself, but that the policies that have been pushed in the region -under the globalisation process-, have produced very bad impacts specially on human development.
 
I know that this is off topic for the list, so I suggest that I can send you many documents that support what I am saying here to your private mail, if you wish.
 
Best regards,
Roxana
 
 


 
2010/4/4 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

Gurstein:
Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries" he stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have been - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the land" in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development process.

Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done to the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman farmers and self-sufficiency?

While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local sources of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess people will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political agenda.

The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be "self-sufficient" in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense American politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This plays well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter nonsense and will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with other countries and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an artificial "national" self-sufficiency?

Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil, food, etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy a world of good.

To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....

--MM




> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>
> Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
> distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
> a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
> also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
> potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
> discontiguous events).
>
> /John
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
> > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
> IMHO a
> > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
> > 329_pf.html
> >
> > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> >
> > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
> > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
> made it
> > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
> farmers
> > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
> >
> > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
> not
> > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
> told
> > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
> > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
> rice
> > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
> else."
> >
> > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
> in
> > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
> report
> > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
> from
> > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
> leaders
> > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
> dependent
> > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
> poor
> > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
> rebuilding
> > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
> > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
> and that
> > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
> > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/4fab6b37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 10:00:17 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:00:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D904B376B92940D287E45EF17F686836@userPC>

I think this discussion goes back to the much earlier discussion and
distinction between CS as a "definitional category" i.e. defined by certain
attributes such as "not-for-profit" and "non-governmental: (the particular
list varies from categorical framework to categorical framework so you can
pretty much take your pick here); or CS as a "movement" based on a
commitment to certain norms and values (again you take your pick but the
core values of promoting the interests and perspectives of the third sector
and particularly the disadvantaged is probably non-negotiable).

Clearly some in this group see CS as the former while others see it as the
latter.  Through some very deft handling by consecutive coordinators and
some willingness to live and let live by the various protagonists the IGC
has managed to survive even in this curious bipolar state.

Not necessarily my first choice, but as Churchill said of democracy...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 6:18 AM
To: Carlos A. Afonso
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd


Hi Carlos,

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> McTim, I undertand your computer programmer approach to recognizing
> CSs, but please at least do a small additional step, recognizing there 
> are major differences (in representation, in actual mission and 
> practices, in allegiance to certain interests etc) among entities 
> which are formally registered as non-profits.

Is CGI.br a CS org?  Are you not also part of the Internet technical
community as well?  Do the I*s not all work for the public benefit in that
they are all working to keep the Internet free, open and IG policy making
bottom up, etc?

I know many on this list have had some unpleasant experiences with
ICANN/ISOC, etc and have lost some faith along the way, but that doesn't
mean they are not CS, at least, not according to the LSE, et. al.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 10:01:09 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:01:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim
>
> You seriously believe ICANN is a civil society organisation!?

of course I do, because it is.

>
> Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your email
> to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is  a 'natural
> monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is definitionally a
> social sub-system denoting pluralism, non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly
> etc.... How could an organisation do a 'natural monopoly' function and be
> civil society?

the two are not at all mutually exclusive.

Do you deny that the root of Internet numbering resources are a
natural monopoly?  How about names?  If it wasn't then I could have
itforchange.net, and there would be chaos in terms of who is who.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Apr  6 10:03:57 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:03:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net>
 <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>
 	<4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net>,<j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8C7F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

McTim,

While there is a logic for why things are the way they are, I cringe every time I hear the phrase 'natural' before monopoly.

Not to get into a long debate, but the historical major proponents of 'natural' monopolies, the telcos,  have been living in a more competitive world for some decades.

So let's not go there, better to just say certain IG allocation functions are best handled - by a CS organization ; )
________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:01 AM
To: Parminder
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim
>
> You seriously believe ICANN is a civil society organisation!?

of course I do, because it is.

>
> Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your email
> to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is  a 'natural
> monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is definitionally a
> social sub-system denoting pluralism, non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly
> etc.... How could an organisation do a 'natural monopoly' function and be
> civil society?

the two are not at all mutually exclusive.

Do you deny that the root of Internet numbering resources are a
natural monopoly?  How about names?  If it wasn't then I could have
itforchange.net, and there would be chaos in terms of who is who.

--
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Apr  6 10:14:28 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:44:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net> <j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BBB41C4.2010505@itforchange.net>



McTim wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>   
> Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your email
>> to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is  a 'natural
>> monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is definitionally a
>> social sub-system denoting pluralism, non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly
>> etc.... How could an organisation do a 'natural monopoly' function and be
>> civil society?
>>     
>
> the two are not at all mutually exclusive.
>   
They are mutually exclusive. That the point i am making. An entity 
cannot be a civil society entity if it undertakes a monopolistic and 
rivalrous function. If IT for Change is civil society body, then it is 
open for anyone else to do whatever we do. We have no special and 
exclusive right over whatever we may purport to do . That is a civil 
society organisation.
> Do you deny that the root of Internet numbering resources are a
> natural monopoly?  How about names?  If it wasn't then I could have
> itforchange.net, and there would be chaos in terms of who is who.
>   
I thought it was obvious that I was not denying numbering resources are 
a natural monopoly. In fact, on the precise logic that they are not, I 
argued that ICANN cannot be called a civil society body.

Parminder



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/5813b8b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 10:39:45 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:39:45 +0500
Subject: [governance] To the other side of the digital divide - ipad anyone?
Message-ID: <s2k701af9f71004060739l281689dfh61f5bda8dbff8754@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Has anyone bought or tried an ipad?

What are your feelings about it and what solutions or backdrops do you
find in it?

We can only read news online about it here in Pakistan or watch a few
product review videos.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Apr  6 10:46:31 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:46:31 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca> <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BBB4947.8070800@cafonso.ca>

OK, McTim, let us compare, if you will.

ICANN is a non-profit which is more than 80% funded by a gTLD vendor
which directly influences ICANN's gTLD policies -- in practice a
brokerage house of the big gTLD business. Most of the complexity of the
current ICANN derives from being the central place where the different
commercial interests of registries, registrars and other commercial
interests try to leverage gTLD governance to suit each one's commercial
aims. Efforts by non-commercial sectors to participate and acquire more
leverage in the decision-making process are frequently thwarted or
outrightly sabotaged by mechanisms embedded in the ICANN structure
(including a frequently pro-business atitude of staff itself).

CGI.br is a not a non-profit organization -- it is a pluralist
commission created with the mandate of governing .br names and
allocation of IP numbers within Brazil. CGI.br oversees the
implementation of its policies through a non-profit organization
(NIC.br) which guarantees that names and numbers are distributed as a
non-profit operation, establishing the .br names as the identity of
Brazil on the Internet and an asset of the commons. NIC.br manages two
million .br domains, IP distribution, and several research and support
projects (such as CERT.br, the IXP network, the research center CETIC.br
among others), and runs its own entire technical facilities, as well as
being the operations center of LACNIC -- all this with less than 20% of
the ICANN budget, and is completely self-sufficient, not depending on
any commercial business to survive.

There are CSs and there are CSs...

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> McTim, I undertand your computer programmer approach to recognizing CSs,
>> but please at least do a small additional step, recognizing there are
>> major differences (in representation, in actual mission and practices,
>> in allegiance to certain interests etc) among entities which are
>> formally registered as non-profits.
> 
> Is CGI.br a CS org?  Are you not also part of the Internet technical
> community as well?  Do the I*s not all work for the public benefit in
> that they are all working to keep the Internet free, open and IG
> policy making bottom up, etc?
> 
> I know many on this list have had some unpleasant experiences with
> ICANN/ISOC, etc and have lost some faith along the way, but that
> doesn't mean they are not CS, at least, not according to the LSE, et.
> al.
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Apr  6 11:51:49 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:51:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] On the topic of disclosure, openness, and the TABL
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <3F25623E-B265-45E4-8D73-AE6FA0A84934@arin.net>

On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:52 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> ... Curran, are you still a paid flunky of ARIN?

I am ARIN's President and CEO since June of last year; it is 
indeed a paid position (prior to then, I served as a Trustee 
and Chairman of the Board of ARIN for 12 years; trustees do 
not receive compensation for their service)

> ... With the implication that you will say and do anything that serves those organization's interests?

I do as directed by the Board of Trustees to serve the mission of 
the organization as they can best determine (note that serving the 
mission of the organization is *not* same as serving the direct
interests of the organization; e.g. if ARIN's mission was best served 
by dissolution and release of myself & the staff, then so be it...)  
An independent volunteer Board elected at large is essential to 
keeping the organization focused on its actual mission and not 
simply self-propagation.

I will not attempt to delve into the definition of civil society, 
but will note that a not-for-profit organization using best practices 
in openness and governance might be considered by many to be more 
accountable to the community than some of the loose coalitions based 
on assertions of "shared interests and values"...   (For an excellent 
look into the openness of the governing practices of various Internet 
organizations, I recommend the following COE/UNECE/APC study):
<http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/Public_participation_internet_governance/Internet_Governance_Report_Souter_May09.pdf>

> And oh, it doesn't matter what you say or prove in the reports, they don't read. All that matters is who commissioned it. 

That might be the case for some in the field, but I can assure you that 
I read your TABL study, and directly reference it my submission to the 
ITU IPv6 Study Group, which you can read online at the link below 
(apologies for not referencing the ITU website, but an "open" ITU study 
group doesn't seem to imply public access to any of the materials):
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487289/ARIN-Contribution-to-ITU-T-IPv6-Study-Group>

/John

John Curran
President and CEO (now also known as "paid flunky" ;-)
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From keerti.nagappa at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 11:56:48 2010
From: keerti.nagappa at gmail.com (Keerti Nagappa)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 08:56:48 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case
Message-ID: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>

A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
traffic flowing over their networks.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp

*Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case*
 <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/technology&pos=Frame4A&sn2=d59993d0/2e9a4d4e&sn1=54576ea3/a621c698&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=ch_02_120x60anim_10k&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcrazyheart>

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org>lacks
the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment
to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast
Corporation<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to
impose so called “net
neutrality<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>”
obligations.

It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to regulate
the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national broadband
plan.




-- 
Keerti Nagappa
LLM Candidate 2010
University of California,
Berkeley School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/7608a734/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 12:04:27 2010
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:04:27 -0300
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <t2s4ca4162f1004060902y466dea2bgb51ba3d5b6a07f0c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <j2x83b95841004051728gd7e5a1c7mb43992e602eb8ad@mail.gmail.com>
	 <t2s4ca4162f1004060902y466dea2bgb51ba3d5b6a07f0c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <l2v4ca4162f1004060904l3011eae3l9562ef3926461c9c@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com>
Date: 2010/4/6
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>


yes of course. Tanks for your concern on this
best,
Roxana



2010/4/5 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>

Roxanna,
>
> Could you please send me these papers and documents as well.
>
> On 4/6/10, Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Milton,
> >
> > I come from a developing country -Argentina-, and from a region full of
> > underdeveloped sectors -Latin America-.
> >
> > There are many studies -economical, political, sociological, cultural,
> etc-,
> > carried out by the most prominent international organisations and
> > institutions such as ECLAC, IADB, etc. which affirm and conclude and
> advice
> > on the catastrofic impacts that market liberalisation  policies have had
> in
> > the region. Meaning this that perhaps liberalisation is not bad in
> itself,
> > but that the policies that have been pushed in the region -under the
> > globalisation process-, have produced very bad impacts specially on human
> > development.
> >
> > I know that this is off topic for the list, so I suggest that I can send
> you
> > many documents that support what I am saying here to your private mail,
> if
> > you wish.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Roxana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/4/4 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> >
> >> Gurstein:
> >> Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries"
> >> he
> >> stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have
> >> been
> >> - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the
> land"
> >> in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development
> >> process.
> >>
> >> Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done
> >> to
> >> the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade
> >> protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced
> to
> >> pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of
> yeoman
> >> farmers and self-sufficiency?
> >>
> >> While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti
> earthquake
> >> disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local
> >> sources
> >> of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess
> people
> >> will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political
> >> agenda.
> >>
> >> The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be
> >> "self-sufficient"
> >> in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target is developed
> >> country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy nonsense
> American
> >> politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient in oil." This
> >> plays
> >> well in any election even though everyone knows that it's utter nonsense
> >> and
> >> will never happen. How about maintaining good relations with other
> >> countries
> >> and paying fair prices for things, instead of seeking an artificial
> >> "national" self-sufficiency?
> >>
> >> Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil,
> >> food,
> >> etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our economy
> a
> >> world of good.
> >>
> >> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist
> trade
> >> policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits
> >> his
> >> very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized
> control
> >> of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....
> >>
> >> --MM
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> >> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
> >> > To: michael gurstein
> >> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to
> 3rd
> >> >
> >> > Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
> >> > distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
> >> > a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
> >> > also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
> >> > potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
> >> > discontiguous events).
> >> >
> >> > /John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about
> overall
> >> > > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance
> is
> >> > IMHO a
> >> > > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> >> > dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
> >> > > 329_pf.html
> >> > >
> >> > > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
> >> > >
> >> > > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago,
> Clinton
> >> > > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
> >> > made it
> >> > > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
> >> > farmers
> >> > > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
> >> > >
> >> > > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it
> has
> >> > not
> >> > > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti
> -
> >> > told
> >> > > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to
> live
> >> > > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
> >> > rice
> >> > > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
> >> > else."
> >> > >
> >> > > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
> >> > in
> >> > > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
> >> > report
> >> > > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
> >> > from
> >> > > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
> >> > leaders
> >> > > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
> >> > dependent
> >> > > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
> >> > poor
> >> > > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
> >> > rebuilding
> >> > > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also
> cheap
> >> > > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
> >> > and that
> >> > > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon,
> but
> >> > > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >> >
> >> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> >
> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> P.O.Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji Islands
>
> Cell: +679 9982851
> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>
> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/9ee3fef6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From keerti.nagappa at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 12:14:13 2010
From: keerti.nagappa at gmail.com (keerti.nagappa at gmail.com)
Date: Tue,  6 Apr 2010 09:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?US_Court_Rules_Against_FCC_in_=E2=80=98Ne?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?t_Neutrality=E2=80=99_Case?=
Message-ID: <sympa.1270570142.95754.712@lists.cpsr.org>

A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
traffic flowing over their networks.

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp

Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to
give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation’s largest
cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose so called
“net neutrality” obligations.

It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to regulate
the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national broadband
plan.




-- 
Keerti Nagappa
LLM Candidate 2010
University of California,
Berkeley School of Law
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Apr  6 13:18:56 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:18:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> <4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4BBB6D00.5030206@wzb.eu>



Parminder wrote:
> McTim
> 
> You seriously believe ICANN is a civil society organisation!?
> 
> Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your 
> email to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is  a 
> 'natural monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is 
> definitionally a social sub-system denoting pluralism, 
> non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly etc.... How could an organisation do a 
> 'natural monopoly' function and be civil society?

I think this is too static an understanding of the provision of 
monopolies. There are examples of monopoly functions which were provided 
by civil society organizations. One of them is the TÜV, the German 
equivalent of what the English call MOT. The TÜV has been responsible 
for all sorts of safety regulations for more than 100 years, including 
mandatory vehicle inspection. The latter function is now privatized and 
subject to competition. Still, the TÜV has clearly civil society roots.

jeanette
> 
> Parminder
> 
> McTim wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>   
>>>> BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>>>> disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU 
>>>> in re: IP address distribution issues.
>>>>       
>>> McTim
>>>
>>> I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
>>>
>>> In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
>>> and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
>>> questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
>>> performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
>>> interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
>>> disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
>>> such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
>>> discussed, and responded to.
>>>
>>> However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
>>> discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
>>> important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet policy-making
>>> seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
>>> such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
>>> you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
>>> regard.
>>>     
>>
>> As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
>> (ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs.  At least
>> according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
>> find online.
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>> It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
>>> possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
>>> demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
>>> to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
>>> making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
>>> interests of their employing organisation.
>>>     
>>
>>
>> exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs.  Just as you
>> represent yours.
>>
>>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 16:57:54 2010
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:57:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <868684.56030.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
	 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	 <v2g4ca4162f1004051654ydc0dd6c1le7bebb771c15929e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <868684.56030.qm@web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <q2t4ca4162f1004061357n9dfb1f6eh9b2c8c84b5ac9687@mail.gmail.com>

Dear David,

I think it is not a matter of countries, but of what governments do as
actors of a complex global governance system, in which the real power is
concentrated in the hands of the multinational companies and the globalized
elites on both sides of development, which are the real beneficiaries of
globalisation policies -not the common people from both
developing/underdeveloped or developed world-.

 I live in a developing country, so I can corroborate the studies I have
mention in a previous mail with my own living experience, and what I have
the chance to see all around me in my loved country and region.

Comming back to IG, which is the core issue of this list, I think that if we
as global civil society want to build "the global public good of wellbeing
for all" in particular through the impact of ICTs policies, we must think on
that problem and work not to let it happen in the IG field -I am talking
about concentration, political or govermental decisions that affect the
global wellbeing, etc.

For example, I am worry about the last European Union document on Internet
that put the European Union citizens and companies interests as the main
thing to protect. I wonder if this is not the same as what happens with
immigrants, I mean, if Internet is seen as a space for nationalities
defense, we are in deep trouble because it will become a new arena for the
same conficts.

I hope it is clear, as English is not my first language.

With all my respect and best intentions,
Roxana










2010/4/5 David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>

>  There is also plenty of evidence of the benefits of globalisation to both
> the developed and developing world. Unfortunately many developed world
> countries have protectionist policies that mean it's far from fair for those
> in the developing world.
>
> Countries, especially America, bang on about free trade and develop free
> trade agreements that do little for anyone but the developing world. America
> even devises FTAs that are detrimental to partner countries in the
> developing world!
>
> So it's not just the developing world that suffers from globalisation, but
> it is the richer and richest countries that devise policies to maximise
> their advantages to them, and introduce policies to protect inefficient
> farmers. And hence the poorest countries suffer the most.
>
> David
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> *Sent:* Tue, 6 April, 2010 9:54:35 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>
> Dear Milton,
>
> I come from a developing country -Argentina-, and from a region full of
> underdeveloped sectors -Latin America-.
>
> There are many studies -economical, political, sociological, cultural,
> etc-, carried out by the most prominent international organisations and
> institutions such as ECLAC, IADB, etc. which affirm and conclude and advice
> on the catastrofic impacts that market liberalisation  policies have had in
> the region. Meaning this that perhaps liberalisation is not bad in itself,
> but that the policies that have been pushed in the region -under the
> globalisation process-, have produced very bad impacts specially on human
> development.
>
> I know that this is off topic for the list, so I suggest that I can send
> you many documents that support what I am saying here to your private mail,
> if you wish.
>
> Best regards,
> Roxana
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/4/4 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>
>> Gurstein:
>> Clinton didn't "admit" that free trade was bad for "3rd world countries"
>> he stated that it was bad for Haitian rice farmers. Which it may well have
>> been - some of them are not competitive. Farmers have been moved "off the
>> land" in every developing economy; typically that's part of the development
>> process.
>>
>> Always missing from the free trade critics perspective is the harms done
>> to the 70-80% of the population who pay more for rice because of the trade
>> protectionism. So, how much more should all those poor people be forced to
>> pay for food so that the economy can conform to romantic notions of yeoman
>> farmers and self-sufficiency?
>>
>> While the emotional impact of this article trades on the Haiti earthquake
>> disaster, I have trouble understanding how total dependence on local sources
>> of food production protects you against a local earthquake. I guess people
>> will use anything to milk such things to support their favored political
>> agenda.
>>
>> The idea that a small island economy such as Haiti can be
>> "self-sufficient" in _anything_ is worth treating critically, if your target
>> is developed country standards of living. It reminds me of the crappy
>> nonsense American politicians like to say about making us "self-sufficient
>> in oil." This plays well in any election even though everyone knows that
>> it's utter nonsense and will never happen. How about maintaining good
>> relations with other countries and paying fair prices for things, instead of
>> seeking an artificial "national" self-sufficiency?
>>
>> Or maybe we should make the state of New York self-sufficient in oil,
>> food, etc. and stop trading with the rest of the world. That'll do our
>> economy a world of good.
>>
>> To add icing to the cake, ARIN's Curran agrees with a protectionist trade
>> policy - which would be disastrous if taken very far - because it suits his
>> very short term and narrow agenda of justifying ARIN's centralized control
>> of internet resources. Talk about a tail wagging a dog....
>>
>> --MM
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
>> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:02 PM
>> > To: michael gurstein
>> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
>> >
>> > Interesting article... There are indeed times when a more "efficient"
>> > distribution of resources via a free market doesn't actually create
>> > a more desirable outcome.  Economic models can be good in theory, but
>> > also need to be tempered in implementation with consideration of the
>> > potential impacts in the real world (and particularly with respect to
>> > discontiguous events).
>> >
>> > /John
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> >
>> > > This isn't directly about Internet Governance but rather about overall
>> > > issues underlying "Global Governance" of which Internet Governance is
>> > IMHO a
>> > > subset hence I think that the below might be of some interest:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> > dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001
>> > > 329_pf.html
>> > >
>> > > Former US president admits trade policies were "a mistake"
>> > >
>> > > During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton
>> > > admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports
>> > made it
>> > > impossible for Haitian farmers to compete. The trade policy forced
>> > farmers
>> > > off the land and undercut Haiti's ability to feed itself.
>> > >
>> > > "It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has
>> > not
>> > > worked. It was a mistake," Clinton - now a UN special envoy to Haiti -
>> > told
>> > > the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live
>> > > everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a
>> > rice
>> > > crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody
>> > else."
>> > >
>> > > Clinton´s apology attracted scant media attention in the US and none
>> > in
>> > > Canada. It was included as part of an Associated Press news agency
>> > report
>> > > that was published by the Washington Post on March 20. The AP report
>> > from
>> > > Haiti´s earthquake-ravaged capital, Port au Prince, suggests world
>> > leaders
>> > > are reconsidering trade and aid policies that make poor countries
>> > dependent
>> > > on rich ones. It quotes UN aid official John Holmes as saying that
>> > poor
>> > > countries, like Haiti, need to become more self-sufficient by
>> > rebuilding
>> > > their own food production. "A combination of food aid, but also cheap
>> > > imports have...resulted in a lack of investment in Haitian farming,
>> > and that
>> > > has to be reversed," Holmes told AP. "That's a global phenomenon, but
>> > > Haiti´s a prime example. I think this is where we should start."
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/76ec37d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From charityg at diplomacy.edu  Tue Apr  6 17:51:26 2010
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:51:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] To the other side of the digital divide - ipad 
In-Reply-To: <s2k701af9f71004060739l281689dfh61f5bda8dbff8754@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s2k701af9f71004060739l281689dfh61f5bda8dbff8754@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <w2jad14556f1004061451k824296bcgf49495af2cefb32c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Fouad,

It was in the news here how some kids bought an ipad, then smashed it using
a baseball bat and posted it in YouTube. They just wasted 500 bucks so they
can post it in Youtube.  I don't think you want that kind of review though
but it was in the 7:00 PM news last night (US Central time). I showed it to
my class and they all reacted: "What did they do that for???" Here is the
link if you are interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGUppxoJUVg

Regards,
Charity




On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Has anyone bought or tried an ipad?
>
> What are your feelings about it and what solutions or backdrops do you
> find in it?
>
> We can only read news online about it here in Pakistan or watch a few
> product review videos.
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100406/af3d333c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 18:50:43 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 03:50:43 +0500
Subject: [governance] To the other side of the digital divide - ipad
In-Reply-To: <w2jad14556f1004061451k824296bcgf49495af2cefb32c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s2k701af9f71004060739l281689dfh61f5bda8dbff8754@mail.gmail.com>
	 <w2jad14556f1004061451k824296bcgf49495af2cefb32c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <v2o701af9f71004061550m4a055dfao50f987a1383a3f43@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Charity,

Thank you for sharing this. I just posted it to my blog as well though
I am not mentioning the names of friends sharing the information for
privacy purposes:

http://noipadforyou.blogspot.com/

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Charity Gamboa <charityg at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
> Hi Fouad,
>
> It was in the news here how some kids bought an ipad, then smashed it using
> a baseball bat and posted it in YouTube. They just wasted 500 bucks so they
> can post it in Youtube.  I don't think you want that kind of review though
> but it was in the 7:00 PM news last night (US Central time). I showed it to
> my class and they all reacted: "What did they do that for???" Here is the
> link if you are interested:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGUppxoJUVg
>
> Regards,
> Charity
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Has anyone bought or tried an ipad?
>>
>> What are your feelings about it and what solutions or backdrops do you
>> find in it?
>>
>> We can only read news online about it here in Pakistan or watch a few
>> product review videos.
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ____________________________________________________________

>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Apr  6 22:28:52 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:28:52 +1200
Subject: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case
In-Reply-To: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Keerti. Do you have a copy of the Judgment?

Sala
On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
> A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
> broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
> traffic flowing over their networks.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
>
> *Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case*
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/technology&pos=Frame4A&sn2=d59993d0/2e9a4d4e&sn1=54576ea3/a621c698&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=ch_02_120x60anim_10k&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcrazyheart>
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> Communications
> Commission<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org>lacks
> the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment
> to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
>
> Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
> Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast
> Corporation<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
> the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to
> impose so called “net
> neutrality<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>”
> obligations.
>
> It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to regulate
> the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national broadband
> plan.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Keerti Nagappa
> LLM Candidate 2010
> University of California,
> Berkeley School of Law
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Apr  6 22:50:56 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 22:50:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case
In-Reply-To: <m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>,<m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8C99@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

There's a link to the judgment embedded in the nytimes story.

________________________________________
From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:28 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Keerti Nagappa
Subject: Re: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case

Thanks Keerti. Do you have a copy of the Judgment?

Sala
On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
> A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
> broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
> traffic flowing over their networks.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
>
> *Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case*
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/technology&pos=Frame4A&sn2=d59993d0/2e9a4d4e&sn1=54576ea3/a621c698&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=ch_02_120x60anim_10k&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcrazyheart>
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> Communications
> Commission<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org>lacks
> the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment
> to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
>
> Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
> Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast
> Corporation<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
> the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to
> impose so called “net
> neutrality<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>”
> obligations.
>
> It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to regulate
> the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national broadband
> plan.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Keerti Nagappa
> LLM Candidate 2010
> University of California,
> Berkeley School of Law
>


--
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From keerti.nagappa at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 06:20:32 2010
From: keerti.nagappa at gmail.com (Keerti Nagappa)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 03:20:32 -0700
Subject: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case
In-Reply-To: <m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>
	 <m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <k2ta40335331004070320zde11eceax8e2f45022d236582@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Salanieta,

Have attached a copy of the case.


On 6 April 2010 19:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Keerti. Do you have a copy of the Judgment?
>
> Sala
> On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
> > Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
> > broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
> > traffic flowing over their networks.
> >
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
> >
> > *Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case*
> > <
> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/technology&pos=Frame4A&sn2=d59993d0/2e9a4d4e&sn1=54576ea3/a621c698&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=ch_02_120x60anim_10k&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcrazyheart
> >
> >
> > WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> > Communications
> > Commission<
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org
> >lacks
> > the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment
> > to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
> >
> > Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District
> of
> > Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast
> > Corporation<
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org
> >,
> > the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority
> to
> > impose so called “net
> > neutrality<
> http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
> >”
> > obligations.
> >
> > It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to
> regulate
> > the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national
> broadband
> > plan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Keerti Nagappa
> > LLM Candidate 2010
> > University of California,
> > Berkeley School of Law
> >
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> P.O.Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji Islands
>
> Cell: +679 9982851
> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>
> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>



-- 
Keerti Nagappa
LLM Candidate 2010
University of California,
Berkeley School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100407/c492d6ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: comcast_fcc.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 106276 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100407/c492d6ac/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 06:29:29 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:29:29 +0300
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
Message-ID: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.cointernet.co/

Do we have any thing to say on this?

This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Apr  7 07:11:35 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:11:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca>

Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD... :)
There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert their
ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.

In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South American
economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any significant
amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from being Tuvalu. On
the other hand, given the size of the economy and Internet penetration
in the country, it is hard to see how a non-profit self-sustainable
operation to keep their ccTLD in the national commons would not succeed.

But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
Colombian Internet space.

frt rgds

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> http://www.cointernet.co/
> 
> Do we have any thing to say on this?
> 
> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 07:33:54 2010
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:33:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <x2iec8caada1004070433if0d7c56bya34917e50b8442be@mail.gmail.com>

From the Wikipedia

Commercial and vanity use

A number of the world's smallest countries have licensed their TLDs for
worldwide commercial use. For example,
Tuvalu<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu>and the Federated
States of Micronesia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia>,
small island-states in the Pacific, have partnered with
VeriSign<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeriSign>and FSM
Telecommunications<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSM_Telecommunications&action=edit&redlink=1>respectively,
to sell domain names using the
.tv <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.tv> and
.fm<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.fm>TLDs to television and radio
stations.

Vanity ccTLDs are TLDs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLDs> which are used
for various purposes outside their home countries, because of their name.
For example,

   - *.ac <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ac>* is a ccTLD for Ascension
   Island <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island>, but is sometimes
   used in Sweden, as "AC" is the abbreviation for the Västerbotten
County<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4sterbotten_County>
   .[8]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#cite_note-7>
   - *.ad <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ad>* is a ccTLD for
Andorra<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra>,
   but has recently been increasingly used by advertising agencies or
classified
   advertising <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_advertising>.
   - *.ag <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ag>* is a ccTLD for Antigua and
   Barbuda <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua_and_Barbuda> and is
   sometimes used for agricultural sites. In
Germany<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany>,
   AG (short for
Aktiengesellschaft<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktiengesellschaft>)
   is appended to the name of a stock-based company, similar to
Inc.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29>in
   USA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>.
   - *.am <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.am>* is a ccTLD for
Armenia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia>,
   but is often used for AM
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM_broadcasting>radio stations, or for
domain
   hacks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack> (such as .i.am).
   - *.as <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.as>* is a ccTLD for American
Samoa<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa>.
   In Denmark and Norway, AS <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap> is
   appended to the name of a stock-based company, similar to Inc. in USA. In
   Czech Republic, the joint stock corporation a.s. abbreviation
stands for Akciová
   společnost <http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akciov%C3%A1_spole%C4%8Dnost>.
   - *.at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.at>* is a ccTLD for
Austria<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria>but is used for English
words ending in at (
   e.at).
   - *.be <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.be>* is a ccTLD for
Belgium<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium>,
   but is sometimes used for the literal term "be" and the
Swiss<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss>
   Canton <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland> of
Bern<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_of_Bern>
   .
   - *.by <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.by>* is a ccTLD for
Belarus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus>,
   but is sometimes used in Germany, as "BY" is the official abbreviation of
   the state Bayern <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria>.
   - *.ca <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ca>* is a ccTLD for
Canada<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada>,
   and is occasionally used to create domain hacks like histori.ca, the web
   domain of the Historica/Dominion
Institute<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historica/Dominion_Institute&action=edit&redlink=1>.
   This type of use is limited by the .ca domain's Canadian residence
   requirements.
   - *.cc <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cc>* is a ccTLD for Cocos (Keeling)
   Islands <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos_%28Keeling%29_Islands> but is
   used for a wide variety of sites such as community colleges, especially
   before such institutions were allowed to use .edu.
   - *.cd <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cd>* is a ccTLD for Democratic
   Republic of Congo<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Congo>but
is used for CD merchants and file sharing sites.
   - *.ch <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ch>* is a ccTLD for
Switzerland<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland>but there are
also a few church websites.
   [9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#cite_note-8>
   - *.ck <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ck>* is a ccTLD for Cook
Islands<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Islands>was notably abused
in Chris
   Morris's <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Morris_%28satirist%29> Nathan
   Barley <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Barley> by preceding it with
   ".co" in order to spell out the word "cock" (.co.ck as in
trashbat.co.ck<http://www.trashbat.co.ck/>
   ).
   - *.co <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.co>* is a ccTLD for
Colombia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia>but is marketed as
commercial, corporation or company.
   [10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#cite_note-unique-9>
   - *.dj <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dj>* is a ccTLD for
Djibouti<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti>but is used for CD
merchants and disc jockeys.
   - *.fm <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.fm>* is a ccTLD for the Federated
   States of Micronesia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia>but
it is often used for
   FM <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM> radio stations (and even non-FM
   stations, such as internet
radio<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio>stations).
   - *.gg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gg>* is a ccTLD for
Guernsey<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey>but it is often used by
the gaming and gambling industry, particularly in
   relation to horse racing and online poker.
   - *.im <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.im>* is a ccTLD for the Isle
of Man<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man>but is often used by
instant messaging programs and services.
   - *.in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.in>* is a ccTLD for
India<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India>but is widely used in the
internet industry.
   - *.io <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io>* is a ccTLD for the British
   Indian Ocean
Territory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory>.
   Notable examples are online storage site
Drop.io<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop.io>and task list site
Done.io.
   - *.is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.is>* is a ccTLD for
Iceland<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland>but is used as the
English verb, "to be" in conjunction with a directory
   name suffix to complete a linguistically correct sentence (e.g.
   "<noun>.is/<verb/adjective>").
   - *.it <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.it>* is a ccTLD for
Italy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy>but is used in domain hacks
(e.g. .
   has.it).
   - *.je <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.je>* is a ccTLD for
Jersey<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey>but is often used as a
diminutive in Dutch (e.g. "
   huis.je"), as "you" ("zoek.je" = "search you!"), or as "I" in French
   (e.g. "moi.je")
   - *.la <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.la>* is a ccTLD for
Laos<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos>but is marketed as the TLD for
Los
   Angeles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles>.
   - *.li <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.li>* is a ccTLD for
Liechtenstein<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein>but is
marketed as the TLD for Long
   Island <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island>.
   - *.lv <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.lv>* is a ccTLD for
Latvia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia>but is also used to
abbreviate Las
   Vegas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas,_Nevada> or less
   frequently, love <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love>.
   - *.ly <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ly>* is a ccTLD for
Libya<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya>but is also used for words
ending with
   suffix <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix> "ly".
   - *.md <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.md>* is a ccTLD for
Moldova<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova>,
   but is marketed to the medical industry (as in "medical domain" or "medical
   doctor").
   - *.me <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.me>* is a ccTLD for
Montenegro<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro>,
   and is recently opened to individuals.
   - *.mn <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mn>* is a ccTLD for
Mongolia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia>,
   but is used to abbreviate Minnesota<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota>
   .
   - *.ms <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ms>* is a ccTLD for
Montserrat<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montserrat>,
   but is also used by Microsoft for such projects as popfly.ms.
   - *.mu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mu>* is a ccTLD for
Mauritius<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius>,
   but is used within the music industry.
   - *.ni <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ni>* is a ccTLD for
Nicaragua<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua>,
   but is occasionally adopted by companies from Northern
Ireland<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland>,
   particularly to distinguish from the more usual
.uk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>within all parts of the United
   Kingdom <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom>
   - *.nu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nu>* is a ccTLD for
Niue<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niue>but marketed as resembling
"new" in English and "now" in Scandinavian/Dutch.
   Also meaning "nude" in French/Portuguese.
   - *.pr <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.pr>* is a ccTLD for Puerto
Rico<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico>,
   but can be used in the meaning of "Public Relations"
   - *.sc <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sc>* is a ccTLD for
Seychelles<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seychelles>but is often used
as .Source
   - *.sh <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sh>* is a ccTLD for Saint
Helena<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena>,
   but is also sometimes used for entities connected to the
German<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany>
   *Bundesland <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany>* of
   Schleswig-Holstein <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-Holstein> or
   the Swiss <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss>
Canton<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland>of
   Schaffhausen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_of_Schaffhausen>, or to
   Shanghai <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai> or
Shenzen<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzen>in China.
   - *.si <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.si>* is a ccTLD for
Slovenia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia>,
   but is also used by Hispanic sites as "yes" ("sí"). Mexican mayor candidate
   Jorge Arana, for example, had his web site registered as
   http://www.jorgearana.si (i.e. "Jorge Arana, sí", meaning "Jorge Arana,
   yes").
   - *.sr <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sr>* is a ccTLD for
Suriname<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname>but is marketed as
being for "seniors".
   - *.st <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.st>* is a ccTLD for São Tomé and
   Príncipe<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A9_and_Pr%C3%ADncipe>but
is being marketed worldwide as an abbreviation for various things
   including "street".
   - *.tk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.tk>* is a ccTLD for
Tokelau<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokelau>but is bought by someone
and given away at dot.tk
   page <http://dot.tk/>
   - *.tm <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.tm>* is a ccTLD for
Turkmenistan<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan>but it can be
used as "Trade Mark"
   - *.to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.to>* is a ccTLD for
Tonga<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga>but is often used as the
English word "to", like "
   go.to"; also is marketed as the TLD for
Toronto<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto>and for the italian city
and province of
   Turin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin> (Torino in italian).
   - *.tv <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.tv>* is a ccTLD for
Tuvalu<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu>but it is used for the
television ("TV") / entertainment industry purposes.
   It is also used for local businesses in the province of Treviso (Italy).
   - *.vg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.vg>* is a ccTLD for British Virgin
   Islands <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Virgin_Islands> but is
   sometimes used to abbreviate Video
games<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game>
   - *.vu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.vu>* is a ccTLD for
Vanuatu<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanuatu>but means "seen" in
French as well as an abbreviation for the English
   language word "view".
   - *.ws <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ws>* is a ccTLD for
Samoa<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa>(earlier Western Samoa), but
is marketed as .Website



On 7 April 2010 13:11, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD... :)
> There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert their
> ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
>
> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
> million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South American
> economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any significant
> amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from being Tuvalu. On
> the other hand, given the size of the economy and Internet penetration
> in the country, it is hard to see how a non-profit self-sustainable
> operation to keep their ccTLD in the national commons would not succeed.
>
> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
> so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
> Colombian Internet space.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> McTim wrote:
> > http://www.cointernet.co/
> >
> > Do we have any thing to say on this?
> >
> > This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
> >
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100407/3d471165/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Wed Apr  7 07:55:10 2010
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 04:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com> <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Carlos et al,

While there are good reasons for and against restricting ccTLD registrations to those who reside in the country of the ccTLD, both individuals and businesses, there are many around the world who have adopted less restrictive policies as to who is eligible to register a domain name and the world hasn't fallen in.

Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the registration process, but this is often easily provided by a registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.

The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.

Cheers
David



----- Original Message ----
From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs

Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD... :)
There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert their
ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.

In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South American
economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any significant
amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from being Tuvalu. On
the other hand, given the size of the economy and Internet penetration
in the country, it is hard to see how a non-profit self-sustainable
operation to keep their ccTLD in the national commons would not succeed.

But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
Colombian Internet space.

frt rgds

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> http://www.cointernet.co/
> 
> Do we have any thing to say on this?
> 
> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Apr  7 08:22:11 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:22:11 -0300
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com> <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BBC78F3.8060204@cafonso.ca>

Let us not hope that anything which does not mean the end of the world
is therefore OK...

--c.a.

David Goldstein wrote:
> Carlos et al,
> 
> While there are good reasons for and against restricting ccTLD registrations to those who reside in the country of the ccTLD, both individuals and businesses, there are many around the world who have adopted less restrictive policies as to who is eligible to register a domain name and the world hasn't fallen in.
> 
> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the registration process, but this is often easily provided by a registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.
> 
> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.
> 
> Cheers
> David
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
> 
> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD... :)
> There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert their
> ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
> 
> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
> million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South American
> economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any significant
> amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from being Tuvalu. On
> the other hand, given the size of the economy and Internet penetration
> in the country, it is hard to see how a non-profit self-sustainable
> operation to keep their ccTLD in the national commons would not succeed.
> 
> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
> so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
> Colombian Internet space.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> McTim wrote:
>> http://www.cointernet.co/
>>
>> Do we have any thing to say on this?
>>
>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
>>
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Apr  7 08:58:41 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:58:41 -0300
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com> <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca>

David, some additional comments below.

--c.a.

David Goldstein wrote:
> Carlos et al,
[...]
> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the
> registration process, but this is often easily provided by a
> registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably
> number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around
> the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world
> hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.

Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that
have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.
There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an
administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal
address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.
box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally
authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court
documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German
Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of
Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is
to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made
more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents
in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."

Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of
Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.

> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is
> harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.

Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they
will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My
point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the
original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in
the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)

cheers

--c.a.

> 
> Cheers David
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> 
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> Sent: Wed,
> 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
> 
> 
> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...
> :) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their 
> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to 
> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the 
> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert
> their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
> 
> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
>  million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South
> American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any
> significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from
> being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and
> Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a
> non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the
> national commons would not succeed.
> 
> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
>  so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a 
> Colombian Internet space.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> McTim wrote:
>> http://www.cointernet.co/
>> 
>> Do we have any thing to say on this?
>> 
>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
>> 
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 10:32:53 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:02:53 -0430
Subject: [governance] Tone of discussion threads, please be professional
Message-ID: <4BBC9795.3030509@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100407/4deec5d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 10:36:05 2010
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:36:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Tone of discussion threads, please be professional
In-Reply-To: <4BBC9795.3030509@gmail.com>
References: <4BBC9795.3030509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <q2i808a83f61004070736jcbc1be34k806ad8463ebab431@mail.gmail.com>

Fully agree. Thank you Ginger for the intervention.

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I enjoy a good discussion and a lively, dynamic debate. I enjoy seeing
> devil's advocate against theory or practice.
>
> However, I remind everyone that we must maintain a respectful and courteous
> demeanor in all posts, refraining from personal attacks or slander ("
> refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander").
>
> There have been posts in the last days that some would opine merit a
> warning. Warnings have not been issued yet, but will be issued if any
> repetitions occur.
>
> If anyone would like to discuss this or ask for clarification, please do so
> by email to me offlist.
>
> Thanks. I do appreciate the substance of the discussions, and think we can
> benefit from the analyses and ideas they contain without personal allusions.
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100407/f5c007db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Wed Apr  7 10:58:44 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:58:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>  <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>  <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>  <4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>  <4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca> <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94A04977-B416-4E68-A4DC-F47C4A66D800@acm.org>


On 6 Apr 2010, at 09:18, McTim wrote:

> I know many on this list have had some unpleasant experiences with
> ICANN/ISOC, etc and have lost some faith along the way, but that
> doesn't mean they are not CS, at least, not according to the LSE, et.
> al.


i think we have to be careful in these designations.

- The internet community wants to define itself as a separate leg of the multistakeholder process, so to call them CS might thwart their own interests in being something other then that.

-  While the I* are non profitare non profit organization , it is their membership and focus that really determines whether they are CS or not.  e.g. the ICC is a non profit, but since it entire focus is commerce, we don't group them with CS.

- ICANN still declares itself as a private sector led - and by private sector the mean business.  other then that they try to wear the mantle of multistakeholder giving both CS and Governments a seat at the table (more then most organization other then the IGF ).  so i would have a hard time considering them CS.

- ISOC is more of a people's organization though it does have some large private sector donors.  And except for the fact that they have been vocal in demanding that the Internet Technical Community be a stakeholder in its own right, I might have been able to consider them CS.  I would probably put the RIRs in this same categories.

so while some of the I* is CSish, I do not think we can consider them CS.

of course the individuals who work for them can, in their own capacity be CS, as long as those are the interests they personally align themselves with.  and then yes, they should be open about where their support comes from.


a.

ps. 
On 6 Apr 2010, at 05:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>  If you disagree with them about anything, theny won't even consider funding your research on an IG topic.


so this is why i get so little funding?

disclosure: currently only funded by the university in Luleå based on a grant from the EC - but hoping for more real soon now.  does the fact that I will take funding from anyone i don't despise who is wiling to fund me to do what i want to do make me less CSish?



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Apr  7 09:34:35 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:34:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
 <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <KB6Try3rnIvLFA+x@perry.co.uk>

In message <4BBC8181.20000 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:58:41 on Wed, 7 Apr 2010, 
Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> writes
>Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
>policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
>German address

Nominet has no restriction. Which is quite useful if you are a Brit who 
has moved overseas and want to keep your domain name.

There are even a few economies where the cctld registry/operator is 
"overseas", but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jfcallo at isocperu.org  Wed Apr  7 14:16:08 2010
From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (Jose Francisco Callo Romero)
Date: Wed,  7 Apr 2010 11:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Please urgent
Message-ID: <sympa.1270664002.8735.539@lists.cpsr.org>

Please a new e-mail is:
jfcallo at ciencitec.com
Please I want to continue in communication with you and the list. 
I do not see the option to change e-mail. 
Thanks 
I hope to respond to new e-mail
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 14:23:47 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:53:47 -0430
Subject: [governance] Please urgent Changing your email address
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1270664002.8735.539@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1270664002.8735.539@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <4BBCCDB3.4090006@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100407/778cb72b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  7 15:22:34 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Tone of discussion threads, please be professional
Message-ID: <515184.28399.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Gonger Paque,
Thank you,

I also agree with you.

We should keep professional attitute.

Thanks

Imran Ahmed Shah

On Wed Apr 7th, 2010 7:32 PM PKT Ginger Paque wrote:

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Apr  7 15:38:42 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:38:42 -0300
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <KB6Try3rnIvLFA+x@perry.co.uk>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com> <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca> <KB6Try3rnIvLFA+x@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4BBCDF42.1000902@cafonso.ca>

Hi Perry,

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4BBC8181.20000 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:58:41 on Wed, 7 Apr 2010,
> Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> writes
>> Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
>> policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
>> German address
> 
> Nominet has no restriction. Which is quite useful if you are a Brit who
> has moved overseas and want to keep your domain name.

This is not the point -- of course Brazilians and Canadians can take a
.br or .ca even if they live abroad, but they have to show up proof of
their citizenship. Is this the same for .uk?

> 
> There are even a few economies where the cctld registry/operator is
> "overseas", but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Yes, very small economies as far as I know...

rgds

--c.a.

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Apr  7 16:23:53 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:23:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <4BBCDF42.1000902@cafonso.ca>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
 <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca> <KB6Try3rnIvLFA+x@perry.co.uk>
 <4BBCDF42.1000902@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <Wo2EhBKZnOvLFAfU@perry.co.uk>

In message <4BBCDF42.1000902 at cafonso.ca>, at 16:38:42 on Wed, 7 Apr 
2010, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> writes

>>> Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
>>> policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
>>> German address
>>
>> Nominet has no restriction. Which is quite useful if you are a Brit who
>> has moved overseas and want to keep your domain name.
>
>This is not the point -- of course Brazilians and Canadians can take a
>.br or .ca even if they live abroad, but they have to show up proof of
>their citizenship. Is this the same for .uk?

Neither citizenship or residence is a requirement for .uk

My point about moving overseas would be the need (if the German model 
was adopted) to keep an address in the UK to serve documents.

>> There are even a few economies where the cctld registry/operator is
>> "overseas", but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
>
>Yes, very small economies as far as I know...

One is very large, in terms of land mass!
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Apr  7 17:35:04 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:35:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <Wo2EhBKZnOvLFAfU@perry.co.uk>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com> <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca> <KB6Try3rnIvLFA+x@perry.co.uk> <4BBCDF42.1000902@cafonso.ca> <Wo2EhBKZnOvLFAfU@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4BBCFA88.1010201@cafonso.ca>

Roland Perry wrote:
[...]

>>
>> Yes, very small economies as far as I know...
> 
> One is very large, in terms of land mass!

Yes, you are right. :)

--c.a.

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 17:46:12 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:46:12 +1200
Subject: [governance] Tone of discussion threads, please be professional
In-Reply-To: <q2i808a83f61004070736jcbc1be34k806ad8463ebab431@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BBC9795.3030509@gmail.com>
	 <q2i808a83f61004070736jcbc1be34k806ad8463ebab431@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <n2z83b95841004071446l1d8e172bx9c1039ba5b41499@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ginger,

Let's just stick to the "issues" debate the issues diplomatically.

Sala

On 4/8/10, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fully agree. Thank you Ginger for the intervention.
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I enjoy a good discussion and a lively, dynamic debate. I enjoy seeing
>> devil's advocate against theory or practice.
>>
>> However, I remind everyone that we must maintain a respectful and
>> courteous
>> demeanor in all posts, refraining from personal attacks or slander ("
>> refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander").
>>
>> There have been posts in the last days that some would opine merit a
>> warning. Warnings have not been issued yet, but will be issued if any
>> repetitions occur.
>>
>> If anyone would like to discuss this or ask for clarification, please do
>> so
>> by email to me offlist.
>>
>> Thanks. I do appreciate the substance of the discussions, and think we can
>> benefit from the analyses and ideas they contain without personal
>> allusions.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  7 17:49:00 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:49:00 +1200
Subject: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case
In-Reply-To: <k2ta40335331004070320zde11eceax8e2f45022d236582@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>
	 <m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>
	 <k2ta40335331004070320zde11eceax8e2f45022d236582@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <i2z83b95841004071449h3a76a384hcf159d6a03a1a9d1@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Keerti, I managed to get it of the NY Times link as well.
But thank you just the same. I would be interested to know what the
hierarchy of the COurt system is in the US, particularly whether FCC
can appeal again.

I will go through the judgment and see whether there was any point dissented?

Sala




On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Salanieta,
>
> Have attached a copy of the case.
>
>
> On 6 April 2010 19:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Keerti. Do you have a copy of the Judgment?
>>
>> Sala
>> On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
>> > Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
>> > broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
>> > traffic flowing over their networks.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
>> >
>> > *Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case*
>> > <
>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/technology&pos=Frame4A&sn2=d59993d0/2e9a4d4e&sn1=54576ea3/a621c698&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=ch_02_120x60anim_10k&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcrazyheart
>> >
>> >
>> > WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>> > Communications
>> > Commission<
>> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org
>> >lacks
>> > the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment
>> > to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
>> >
>> > Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District
>> of
>> > Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast
>> > Corporation<
>> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org
>> >,
>> > the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s
>> > authority
>> to
>> > impose so called “net
>> > neutrality<
>> http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
>> >”
>> > obligations.
>> >
>> > It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to
>> regulate
>> > the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national
>> broadband
>> > plan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Keerti Nagappa
>> > LLM Candidate 2010
>> > University of California,
>> > Berkeley School of Law
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> P.O.Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji Islands
>>
>> Cell: +679 9982851
>> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>>
>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Keerti Nagappa
> LLM Candidate 2010
> University of California,
> Berkeley School of Law
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Wed Apr  7 19:37:10 2010
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com> <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <515787.67198.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Carlos,

Any registrar that registers .DE domain names can provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this can be a headache. Nominet has no restrictions I am aware of. AuDA has restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with their work.

And when there are over 13 million domains, such as .DE and over 8 million (.UK) it *IS* much harder to get your preferred domain name than say, if there are over one million (.AU and .CA).


Regards
David



----- Original Message ----
From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs

David, some additional comments below.

--c.a.

David Goldstein wrote:
> Carlos et al,
[...]
> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the
> registration process, but this is often easily provided by a
> registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably
> number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around
> the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world
> hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.

Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that
have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.
There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an
administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal
address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.
box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally
authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court
documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German
Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of
Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is
to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made
more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents
in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."

Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of
Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.

> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is
> harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.

Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they
will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My
point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the
original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in
the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)

cheers

--c.a.

> 
> Cheers David
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> 
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> Sent: Wed,
> 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
> 
> 
> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...
> :) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their 
> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to 
> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the 
> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert
> their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
> 
> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
>  million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South
> American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any
> significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from
> being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and
> Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a
> non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the
> national commons would not succeed.
> 
> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
>  so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a 
> Colombian Internet space.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> McTim wrote:
>> http://www.cointernet.co/
>> 
>> Do we have any thing to say on this?
>> 
>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
>> 
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Apr  8 02:10:08 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:10:08 +0500
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <515787.67198.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca>
	 <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca>
	 <515787.67198.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <n2t701af9f71004072310ia45df46emc3f8bc21f0786772@mail.gmail.com>

This may be interesting to many as it can serve as case study from the
developing world:

There are many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world.
For example in the case of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for .pk was
given in the time of IANA to a Pakistani based in the US who has now
come back to Pakistan. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was under an IANA
allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a
country of 170 million plus population the following are the domain
registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered:

stats for PKNIC
2010-04-07:
domains: 29557
nameservers: 1179

There is consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people are reluctant to take
over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a
period of two years for $25 a domain whereas a TLD can be acquired for
only $16 for two years. Each time the debate on decentralization of
PKNIC comes up, PKNIC has connection in the high up places and is
easily able to revoke such efforts.

When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some
of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members
fell for it and felt so honoured to be included in the board that they
forgot what the actual Internet Governance problems were. They still
continue to participate in the IGC but are prone to PKNIC interests
which of course is a very big drawback.

PKNIC has occasionally broken down in its service with outages
sometimes over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain
interests from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the local
and international communities as visible publicly here:
http://public.icann.org/node/343.

PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through a public-private partnership
between civil society, academia, private sector and govt
multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people are more
oriented to acquire TLD domains as per today the total TLD domains in
the country stand at approximately:

Total Domains in Pakistan : 41,380
(Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK)

IF we look at our neighbouring country India, their ccTLD runs as a
multistakeholder partnership due to which they have more than half a
million local domains. Similarly their TLD registrations are also at
the same number:
Total Domains in India : 559,213
(Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN)

This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize their positions
in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following
ways:

1. No control over ccTLD monopolies
2. Access low-cost ccTLD
3. Have to buy more TLD instead of ccTLD
4. Less consumer choices
5. Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high
6. Lesser opportunities for local initiative growth (with respect to
building local online activities backed by local domains)
7. Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator can
influence govt and other groups to host their GLTDs/IDNs under the
same infrastructure.

Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be
benefiting a handful.

Best Regards
Fouad Bajwa

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, David Goldstein
<goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> Any registrar that registers .DE domain names can provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this can be a headache. Nominet has no restrictions I am aware of. AuDA has restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with their work.
>
> And when there are over 13 million domains, such as .DE and over 8 million (.UK) it *IS* much harder to get your preferred domain name than say, if there are over one million (.AU and .CA).
>
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
> Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>
> David, some additional comments below.
>
> --c.a.
>
> David Goldstein wrote:
>> Carlos et al,
> [...]
>> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the
>> registration process, but this is often easily provided by a
>> registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably
>> number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around
>> the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world
>> hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.
>
> Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
> policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
> German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that
> have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.
> There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an
> administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal
> address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.
> box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally
> authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court
> documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German
> Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of
> Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is
> to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made
> more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents
> in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."
>
> Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of
> Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.
>
>> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is
>> harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.
>
> Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they
> will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My
> point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the
> original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in
> the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)
>
> cheers
>
> --c.a.
>
>>
>> Cheers David
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> Sent: Wed,
>> 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>>
>>
>> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...
>> :) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
>> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
>> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
>> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert
>> their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
>>
>> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
>>  million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South
>> American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any
>> significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from
>> being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and
>> Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a
>> non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the
>> national commons would not succeed.
>>
>> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
>>  so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
>> Colombian Internet space.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> McTim wrote:
>>> http://www.cointernet.co/
>>>
>>> Do we have any thing to say on this?
>>>
>>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Thu Apr  8 10:06:28 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:06:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] mudslides
Message-ID: <F8E8016F-2349-4856-8EC8-0CA046A8D83D@acm.org>

hi,

best wishes for anyone who may have anyone in the way of mudslides.  i expect/hope that given the size and the where and the luck of statistics, none of this list's Brasilian members are in the mud's way, but best wishes nonetheless.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Apr  8 10:44:48 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:44:48 -0300
Subject: [governance] mudslides
In-Reply-To: <F8E8016F-2349-4856-8EC8-0CA046A8D83D@acm.org>
References: <F8E8016F-2349-4856-8EC8-0CA046A8D83D@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4BBDEBE0.3060605@cafonso.ca>

Thanks, Avri. We were lucky enough indeed, but nearly all became
isolated for nearly 24 hours -- it was the most intense rainfall on
record, coupled with high sea tides which kept the water in the city
(nearly 300 mm of it in a little more than 24 hours). Consequences are
terrible especially for the poor in higher areas -- and this time even
the very rich who have their mansions in higher areas as well were
affected (Nature was a bit more democratic this time).

I heve never seen anything like it. The sun is finally appearing today,
but bits of rain are still happening. Early last night a major landslide
 buried about 60 homes -- estimates now are that 200 people are buried dead.

beso

--c.a.

Avri Doria wrote:
> hi,
> 
> best wishes for anyone who may have anyone in the way of mudslides.  i expect/hope that given the size and the where and the luck of statistics, none of this list's Brasilian members are in the mud's way, but best wishes nonetheless.
> 
> 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Apr  8 11:37:33 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:37:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case
In-Reply-To: <i2z83b95841004071449h3a76a384hcf159d6a03a1a9d1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>
	 <m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>
	 <k2ta40335331004070320zde11eceax8e2f45022d236582@mail.gmail.com>,<i2z83b95841004071449h3a76a384hcf159d6a03a1a9d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CBB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Next stop theoretically could be Supreme Court for FCC - but I doubt it.  They don't really have grounds for appeal.

Hate to say it, but this was obvious based on law, many could see this coming miles away. 

More likely scenarios: 

FCC redefines Internet on its own under 96 Telecom Act as telecoms and hence has authority for net neutrality rules, through current net neutrality rulemaking (not likely)

Congress gets in on act, lots of hearings and draft bills, nothing passes, FCC in limbo as to its authority (likely).

Which means...US domestic governance &/or regulation of Internet, broadband, etc, just got murkier.  

Except for broadband wireless, where FCC has clear authority over spectrum....which happens to be the main game these days.

 



________________________________________
From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:49 PM
To: Keerti Nagappa
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case

Thank you Keerti, I managed to get it of the NY Times link as well.
But thank you just the same. I would be interested to know what the
hierarchy of the COurt system is in the US, particularly whether FCC
can appeal again.

I will go through the judgment and see whether there was any point dissented?

Sala




On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Salanieta,
>
> Have attached a copy of the case.
>
>
> On 6 April 2010 19:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Keerti. Do you have a copy of the Judgment?
>>
>> Sala
>> On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
>> > Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
>> > broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
>> > traffic flowing over their networks.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
>> >
>> > *Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case*
>> > <
>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/technology&pos=Frame4A&sn2=d59993d0/2e9a4d4e&sn1=54576ea3/a621c698&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=ch_02_120x60anim_10k&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcrazyheart
>> >
>> >
>> > WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>> > Communications
>> > Commission<
>> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org
>> >lacks
>> > the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment
>> > to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
>> >
>> > Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District
>> of
>> > Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast
>> > Corporation<
>> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org
>> >,
>> > the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s
>> > authority
>> to
>> > impose so called “net
>> > neutrality<
>> http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
>> >”
>> > obligations.
>> >
>> > It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to
>> regulate
>> > the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national
>> broadband
>> > plan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Keerti Nagappa
>> > LLM Candidate 2010
>> > University of California,
>> > Berkeley School of Law
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> P.O.Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji Islands
>>
>> Cell: +679 9982851
>> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>>
>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Keerti Nagappa
> LLM Candidate 2010
> University of California,
> Berkeley School of Law
>


--
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com  Thu Apr  8 14:45:30 2010
From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 15:45:30 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought
In-Reply-To: <5D168EB9-7E47-4E1B-A1BF-7CC97544C4F3@arin.net>
References: <566540.35872.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	 <D1083C76-E1C1-48D9-A469-D439B8C6FB62@arin.net>
	 <6348C1C6-B8F2-4B4B-843A-B1D2A49DA097@christopherwilkinson.eu>
	 <f65fb55e1003182250u6f96864am299ec31f76422ef9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5D168EB9-7E47-4E1B-A1BF-7CC97544C4F3@arin.net>
Message-ID: <g2l490d0ba61004081145y67de8e8ap5f9870a106ac7833@mail.gmail.com>

Dear colleagues,


For TIES users, the audio webcast for the entire ITU-T IPv6 meeting is
available at http://www.itu.int/ibs/ITU-T/201003ipv6/.

This does not solve the problem for those who do not have a TIES account;
however, ones who do can now have access to the whole discussion held at ITU
and check it against the report.

Knowing whether an opinion is reflected or not in the document should not be
an issue anymore.


Abraços,
Sérgio


2010/3/19 John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>

> On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:50 AM, McTim wrote:
>
> ...
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:40 AM, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote:
>
>> Okay . . . So, who's got the final version?
>>
>
> It seems it may not be ready for quite a while if they need to continue
> negotiations on a line by line basis.
>
>
> The negotiations were all done already in session, but several delegates
> from various ITu members indicated that they would send text to the Chair
> regarding (generally correcting sections which summarized
> their particularly
> interventions during the meeting).  The Chair has the unenviable job of
> having
> to collect submissions of this type which we've agreed on principle, actual
> edits
> from the floor, and put it  all together.  This generally will go back out
> to the
> delegates to check one more time, and only then does it get released.  My
> optimistic estimate is early next week.
>
> /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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100408/b77330ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Apr  8 15:12:49 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 07:12:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality' Case
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CBB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <t2ga40335331004060856z1d628636z7029c3de06417f67@mail.gmail.com>
	 <m2g83b95841004061928kdd601440macd45990cdba8519@mail.gmail.com>
	 <k2ta40335331004070320zde11eceax8e2f45022d236582@mail.gmail.com>
	 <i2z83b95841004071449h3a76a384hcf159d6a03a1a9d1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CBB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <n2p83b95841004081212o8d8b3e06n79415de15125f98b@mail.gmail.com>

:) Thanks Lee this is ery helpful in reading the same in context.




On 4/9/10, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> Next stop theoretically could be Supreme Court for FCC - but I doubt it.
> They don't really have grounds for appeal.
>
> Hate to say it, but this was obvious based on law, many could see this
> coming miles away.
>
> More likely scenarios:
>
> FCC redefines Internet on its own under 96 Telecom Act as telecoms and hence
> has authority for net neutrality rules, through current net neutrality
> rulemaking (not likely)
>
> Congress gets in on act, lots of hearings and draft bills, nothing passes,
> FCC in limbo as to its authority (likely).
>
> Which means...US domestic governance &/or regulation of Internet, broadband,
> etc, just got murkier.
>
> Except for broadband wireless, where FCC has clear authority over
> spectrum....which happens to be the main game these days.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:49 PM
> To: Keerti Nagappa
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] US Court Rules against FCC in 'Net Neutrality'
> Case
>
> Thank you Keerti, I managed to get it of the NY Times link as well.
> But thank you just the same. I would be interested to know what the
> hierarchy of the COurt system is in the US, particularly whether FCC
> can appeal again.
>
> I will go through the judgment and see whether there was any point
> dissented?
>
> Sala
>
>
>
>
> On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Salanieta,
>>
>> Have attached a copy of the case.
>>
>>
>> On 6 April 2010 19:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Keerti. Do you have a copy of the Judgment?
>>>
>>> Sala
>>> On 4/7/10, Keerti Nagappa <keerti.nagappa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > A federal appeals court (US) has ruled that the Federal
>>> > Communications Commission (FCC)lacks the authority to require
>>> > broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
>>> > traffic flowing over their networks.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp
>>> >
>>> > *Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case*
>>> > <
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/technology&pos=Frame4A&sn2=d59993d0/2e9a4d4e&sn1=54576ea3/a621c698&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=ch_02_120x60anim_10k&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcrazyheart
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>>> > Communications
>>> > Commission<
>>> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org
>>> >lacks
>>> > the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment
>>> > to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
>>> >
>>> > Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District
>>> of
>>> > Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast
>>> > Corporation<
>>> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org
>>> >,
>>> > the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s
>>> > authority
>>> to
>>> > impose so called “net
>>> > neutrality<
>>> http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
>>> >”
>>> > obligations.
>>> >
>>> > It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to
>>> regulate
>>> > the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national
>>> broadband
>>> > plan.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Keerti Nagappa
>>> > LLM Candidate 2010
>>> > University of California,
>>> > Berkeley School of Law
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> P.O.Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji Islands
>>>
>>> Cell: +679 9982851
>>> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>>>
>>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Keerti Nagappa
>> LLM Candidate 2010
>> University of California,
>> Berkeley School of Law
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> P.O.Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji Islands
>
> Cell: +679 9982851
> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>
> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Apr  8 16:24:38 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:24:38 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <3DC62766-99D7-4732-8B1C-A2D99BEDF0AD@acm.org>
References: <D780B02A62574BD488FDAE3A17058B67@userPC>	 <705909.22577.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <z2k83b95841004040034z5ae33563j864205c4ecdfa062@mail.gmail.com> <4BB876E0.7070800@cafonso.ca> <3DC62766-99D7-4732-8B1C-A2D99BEDF0AD@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4BBE3B86.5020409@cafonso.ca>

Avri, I agree with you, this is actually a heavy game played by all 
large exporters and usually won by the most powerful ones in each 
sector. In reality the corn-to-ethanol policy of the US government 
impacts much more the poor in nations where corn is a staple food, like 
Mexico, since corn prices went up wildly after the USG stimulated this use.

All big agricultural exporters (Brazil included of course -- btw 
harvesting this year an all time record of 146 million metric tons of 
grain -- mostly beans and corn) have stimulus/subsidies policies in 
place. No one just sits down and waits for the good will of the other 
ones to drop these in favor of the never existent free market. The 
smallest countries are not allowed to play, just to be played with, 
unfortunately.

--c.a.

Avri Doria wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2010, at 07:24, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, right now the recent Obama government's decision to reduce
>> barriers to ethanol imports is meeting severe resistance from US
>> corn farmers. Any similar attempt regarding other crops will have
>> similar reactions, and basically nothing is new on this and nothing
>> will change, remorseful discourses aside. Europe is of course no
>> exception.
> 
> 
> just checking because i do not know, what are Brazil's policies
> regarding the protection of its farmers and industries?
> 
> also i think it is easy to condemn other countries for such behavior,
> but when masses of people are unemployed and homeless, despite the
> fact that rich manufacturers and agribusiness are raking in the
> billions, the issue is slightly more complex then US and Europe are
> bad.  also when the business leaders in the developing world are
> exploiting their workers and using child labor in many case to enable
> their capitalists to get rich, were does the motivation come from?
> 
> this your country bad, my country good stuff is not going to get us
> very far - though it does help the owners of our repspective
> countries a bunch.
> 
> 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Apr  8 22:19:30 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:19:30 +1200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk> <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <v2n83b95841004081919he65ab6d8gff6af84e73523927@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Jeanette,

Your practical question reminds of something I may have read somewhere
but can't for the life of me remember, it's about how consumers in the
West post Copenhagen discussions are into buying green produce and
chances are if they are consuming something that took so long to get
to their country, it would have have not been environmentally
efficient and consumers would soon rather purchase commodity from
neighbouring region.

I am reminded of bottled water how I watched a documentary (rerun)
where it said that it takes 8 litres of water to make one bottled
water etc and how people should just use filters and drink tap water.

Where do we draw the line and how do we trade efficiently and be
mindful of not trampling on others just because we are giants and we
can.

I have chillie growing in my yard in Suva, Fiji Islands and would love
to send you some but quarrantine probably won't allow it.  In Fiji,
people also dry chillies to preserve them.

Cheers,

Sala
On 4/6/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just now,
>> I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco,
>> expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking
>> mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do - not
>> buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop),
>
> You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without
> losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by
> putting them under hot water.
>
> and who
>> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan
>> consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces, taking
>> with it the wholesale price.
>
> Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an
> either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce
> and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding long
> distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or
> organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly
> also one.
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int  Fri Apr  9 05:11:20 2010
From: Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int (HIBBARD Lee)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:11:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG 2010 (Madrid, 29-30 April)
Message-ID: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC06830F4D@OBELIX.key.coe.int>

For information the third European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) will take place in Madrid, on 29 and 30 April 2010.
This event is being organised by the Spanish IGF (Internet Governance Forum), including Red.es, Telefónica and Madrid City Council, with the support of the Council of Europe, the Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) and a number of other stakeholders. Topics to be addressed include the public and economic value of the Internet, "cloud computing" and jurisdiction questions, the delivery of online content by the private sector, new top-level domain names, privacy, network neutrality, and the well-being of children and young people in online environments. 
To register and seek further information concerning the event please consult the EuroDIG website: www.eurodig.org. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100409/8eb2e02d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Apr  9 06:28:40 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:28:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <v2n83b95841004081919he65ab6d8gff6af84e73523927@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 
	<tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk> <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu> <v2n83b95841004081919he65ab6d8gff6af84e73523927@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g2xfa468ac01004090328m2dfbf42chb36078b0df6a6a5@mail.gmail.com>

I have been following this discussion with interest, particularly as I
belong to Saint Lucia, one of the banana producing countries of the Windward
Islands in the Caribbean.
This morning I read this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8610427.stm which may interest some of
you. It also deals with the protection of local agriculture, in this case in
some African countries, and in this case using intellectual property rights,
specifically patents.
Can someone advise me please - Ginger?? - should I copy in the text of the
article or is the URL sufficient?
Deirdre

On 8 April 2010 22:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jeanette,
>
> Your practical question reminds of something I may have read somewhere
> but can't for the life of me remember, it's about how consumers in the
> West post Copenhagen discussions are into buying green produce and
> chances are if they are consuming something that took so long to get
> to their country, it would have have not been environmentally
> efficient and consumers would soon rather purchase commodity from
> neighbouring region.
>
> I am reminded of bottled water how I watched a documentary (rerun)
> where it said that it takes 8 litres of water to make one bottled
> water etc and how people should just use filters and drink tap water.
>
> Where do we draw the line and how do we trade efficiently and be
> mindful of not trampling on others just because we are giants and we
> can.
>
> I have chillie growing in my yard in Suva, Fiji Islands and would love
> to send you some but quarrantine probably won't allow it.  In Fiji,
> people also dry chillies to preserve them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sala
> On 4/6/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just now,
> >> I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco,
> >> expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking
> >> mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do - not
> >> buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop),
> >
> > You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without
> > losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by
> > putting them under hot water.
> >
> > and who
> >> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan
> >> consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces, taking
> >> with it the wholesale price.
> >
> > Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an
> > either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce
> > and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding long
> > distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or
> > organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly
> > also one.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> P.O.Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji Islands
>
> Cell: +679 9982851
> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>
> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100409/c0dc719d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Apr  9 09:41:15 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:11:15 -0430
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG 2010 (Madrid, 29-30 April)--Remote
In-Reply-To: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC06830F4D@OBELIX.key.coe.int>
References: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC06830F4D@OBELIX.key.coe.int>
Message-ID: <4BBF2E7B.1040501@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100409/47945acc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Apr  9 10:04:31 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:04:31 -0300
Subject: [governance] Important moment for Internet regulation in Brazil
Message-ID: <z2if7e605ab1004090704lca2c7f02pc25d5724f729fd10@mail.gmail.com>

Dear members of the list,

As you may have heard, Brazil is going through a very special (and unique)
phase of the regulation of Internet in the country. In the end of 2009, a
process of public consultation to collaboratively elaborate a *civil**-*rights
based regulatory *framework* for *internet* in Brazil has been put forth by
the Ministry of Justice (MJ), with the support of the Center for Technology
and Society (CTS) of the Getulio Vargas Foundation.

This collaborative process substitutes very dangerous attempts to regulate
the Internet from a criminal standpoint . The more widely known bill was
called law Azeredo, which disregarded privacy concerns and criminalized
socially accepted behaviors. The result would be massive criminalization of
the population and a draconian protection of copyright.

A platform has been created specially for people to comment of the proposal
of civil framework. On the first phase of the consultation people had to
comment on a text about general principles and issues. Those comments were
read and systematized by MJ and CTS and have based the creation of a draft
bill. This bill has been made available online yesterday. It is under a
second phase of public consultation, which will last for 45 days. The
suggestions will be again systematized and incorporated to the bill, which
will then be present to our Congress for discussion.

Some points of this process need to be highlighted:

1-      This is a unique process of public consultation. There has never
been such a wide and open possibility for society to be heard about a new
regulation. Participation on the first phase came from civil society,
business sector and governments organizations.

2-       This is a pilot-experiment, that can be used in the future to
discuss other law proposals. In this sense, Brazil is making a huge step
towards the improvement of e-participation and e-democracy.

3-      The battle is just beginning. There is a long way until the bill is
approved. But we would not have come this far without a vibrant civil
society movement who has said “no” to laws like “Azeredo law” and has made
protests and campaigns throughout the country, both online and offline.

I would like to share with you the link to the platform. Although the text
of the bill is only in Portuguese, we are already working on its translation
in order to give it publicity outside Brazil.

http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/

This is a very important moment for the Brazilian Internet users and I would
like to share the good news with you.

Best wishes,

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100409/13e73788/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Apr  9 12:42:05 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <n2t701af9f71004072310ia45df46emc3f8bc21f0786772@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <504780.11881.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Fouad,
 
This report is informative. Your "clearly shows" conclusion is not correct in form of logic.  It may be correct but not from the data you provided.  A one on one comparison to a totally different dynamic situation does not render the results you are trying to build.  Statistics are not the argument for or against privatizing or maintaining public trust of a ccTLD. To be truly legitimate under the forms of government you are relating requires different process and substantiation.
 
The questions presented here are not numbers but qualitative and nationalistic. They are value calls for a culture. Forests and minerals are national resources. Does the ccTLD fit in this scheme. The Great Pele' was designated a national treasure or some such thing -- does the ccTLD model fit even that protocal?  One could argue that not even massive democratic voting could alter the designation. 
 
So in a forum discussing the should and should nots of the various and sundry thousands of governmental bodies we must focus on the should ,,,  as a logical moral compass and let the technocrats labor over politically correct justifications.  Ben Franklyn wrote to George Washington while ambassador to France during (a?) revolution : "a fool sir is still a fool, the fact you gather them by the multitudes only aggravates the situation" Really a pompous ass statement but it reminds us that counting numbers does not change reason.

--- On Thu, 4/8/10, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "David Goldstein" <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 6:10 AM


This may be interesting to many as it can serve as case study from the
developing world:

There are many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world.
For example in the case of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for .pk was
given in the time of IANA to a Pakistani based in the US who has now
come back to Pakistan. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was under an IANA
allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a
country of 170 million plus population the following are the domain
registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered:

stats for PKNIC
2010-04-07:
domains: 29557
nameservers: 1179

There is consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people are reluctant to take
over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a
period of two years for $25 a domain whereas a TLD can be acquired for
only $16 for two years. Each time the debate on decentralization of
PKNIC comes up, PKNIC has connection in the high up places and is
easily able to revoke such efforts.

When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some
of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members
fell for it and felt so honoured to be included in the board that they
forgot what the actual Internet Governance problems were. They still
continue to participate in the IGC but are prone to PKNIC interests
which of course is a very big drawback.

PKNIC has occasionally broken down in its service with outages
sometimes over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain
interests from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the local
and international communities as visible publicly here:
http://public.icann.org/node/343.

PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through a public-private partnership
between civil society, academia, private sector and govt
multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people are more
oriented to acquire TLD domains as per today the total TLD domains in
the country stand at approximately:

Total Domains in Pakistan : 41,380
(Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK)

IF we look at our neighbouring country India, their ccTLD runs as a
multistakeholder partnership due to which they have more than half a
million local domains. Similarly their TLD registrations are also at
the same number:
Total Domains in India : 559,213
(Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN)

This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize their positions
in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following
ways:

1. No control over ccTLD monopolies
2. Access low-cost ccTLD
3. Have to buy more TLD instead of ccTLD
4. Less consumer choices
5. Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high
6. Lesser opportunities for local initiative growth (with respect to
building local online activities backed by local domains)
7. Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator can
influence govt and other groups to host their GLTDs/IDNs under the
same infrastructure.

Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be
benefiting a handful.

Best Regards
Fouad Bajwa

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, David Goldstein
<goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> Any registrar that registers .DE domain names can provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this can be a headache. Nominet has no restrictions I am aware of. AuDA has restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with their work.
>
> And when there are over 13 million domains, such as .DE and over 8 million (.UK) it *IS* much harder to get your preferred domain name than say, if there are over one million (.AU and .CA).
>
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
> Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>
> David, some additional comments below.
>
> --c.a.
>
> David Goldstein wrote:
>> Carlos et al,
> [...]
>> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the
>> registration process, but this is often easily provided by a
>> registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably
>> number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around
>> the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world
>> hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.
>
> Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
> policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
> German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that
> have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.
> There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an
> administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal
> address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.
> box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally
> authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court
> documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German
> Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of
> Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is
> to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made
> more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents
> in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."
>
> Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of
> Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.
>
>> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is
>> harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.
>
> Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they
> will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My
> point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the
> original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in
> the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)
>
> cheers
>
> --c.a.
>
>>
>> Cheers David
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> Sent: Wed,
>> 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>>
>>
>> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...
>> :) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
>> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
>> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
>> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert
>> their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
>>
>> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
>>  million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South
>> American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any
>> significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from
>> being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and
>> Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a
>> non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the
>> national commons would not succeed.
>>
>> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
>>  so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
>> Colombian Internet space.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> McTim wrote:
>>> http://www.cointernet.co/
>>>
>>> Do we have any thing to say on this?
>>>
>>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100409/84d85f88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Apr  9 13:13:54 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 20:13:54 +0300
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <n2t701af9f71004072310ia45df46emc3f8bc21f0786772@mail.gmail.com>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca> <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com> 
	<4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca> <515787.67198.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> 
	<n2t701af9f71004072310ia45df46emc3f8bc21f0786772@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <o2wf65fb55e1004091013md87df356o32d1dacd835dc53a@mail.gmail.com>

All,.

We know all of this, but my question was, do WE have anything to say about it?

Does the IGC want to make a statement or at least have a workshop on
this?  Seems to me that this is much more of a real IG issuemuch  than
the proposed IGC wkshops.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> This may be interesting to many as it can serve as case study from the
> developing world:
>
> There are many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world.
> For example in the case of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for .pk was
> given in the time of IANA to a Pakistani based in the US who has now
> come back to Pakistan. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was under an IANA
> allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a
> country of 170 million plus population the following are the domain
> registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered:
>
> stats for PKNIC
> 2010-04-07:
> domains: 29557
> nameservers: 1179
>
> There is consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people are reluctant to take
> over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a
> period of two years for $25 a domain whereas a TLD can be acquired for
> only $16 for two years. Each time the debate on decentralization of
> PKNIC comes up, PKNIC has connection in the high up places and is
> easily able to revoke such efforts.
>
> When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some
> of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members
> fell for it and felt so honoured to be included in the board that they
> forgot what the actual Internet Governance problems were. They still
> continue to participate in the IGC but are prone to PKNIC interests
> which of course is a very big drawback.
>
> PKNIC has occasionally broken down in its service with outages
> sometimes over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain
> interests from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the local
> and international communities as visible publicly here:
> http://public.icann.org/node/343.
>
> PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through a public-private partnership
> between civil society, academia, private sector and govt
> multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people are more
> oriented to acquire TLD domains as per today the total TLD domains in
> the country stand at approximately:
>
> Total Domains in Pakistan : 41,380
> (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK)
>
> IF we look at our neighbouring country India, their ccTLD runs as a
> multistakeholder partnership due to which they have more than half a
> million local domains. Similarly their TLD registrations are also at
> the same number:
> Total Domains in India : 559,213
> (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN)
>
> This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize their positions
> in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following
> ways:
>
> 1. No control over ccTLD monopolies
> 2. Access low-cost ccTLD
> 3. Have to buy more TLD instead of ccTLD
> 4. Less consumer choices
> 5. Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high
> 6. Lesser opportunities for local initiative growth (with respect to
> building local online activities backed by local domains)
> 7. Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator can
> influence govt and other groups to host their GLTDs/IDNs under the
> same infrastructure.
>
> Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be
> benefiting a handful.
>
> Best Regards
> Fouad Bajwa
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, David Goldstein
> <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Carlos,
>>
>> Any registrar that registers .DE domain names can provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this can be a headache. Nominet has no restrictions I am aware of. AuDA has restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with their work.
>>
>> And when there are over 13 million domains, such as .DE and over 8 million (.UK) it *IS* much harder to get your preferred domain name than say, if there are over one million (.AU and .CA).
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
>> Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>>
>> David, some additional comments below.
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> David Goldstein wrote:
>>> Carlos et al,
>> [...]
>>> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the
>>> registration process, but this is often easily provided by a
>>> registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably
>>> number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around
>>> the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world
>>> hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.
>>
>> Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
>> policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
>> German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that
>> have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.
>> There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an
>> administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal
>> address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.
>> box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally
>> authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court
>> documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German
>> Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of
>> Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is
>> to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made
>> more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents
>> in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."
>>
>> Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of
>> Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.
>>
>>> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is
>>> harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.
>>
>> Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they
>> will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My
>> point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the
>> original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in
>> the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> Sent: Wed,
>>> 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...
>>> :) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
>>> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
>>> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
>>> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert
>>> their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
>>>
>>> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
>>>  million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South
>>> American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any
>>> significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from
>>> being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and
>>> Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a
>>> non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the
>>> national commons would not succeed.
>>>
>>> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
>>>  so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
>>> Colombian Internet space.
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> McTim wrote:
>>>> http://www.cointernet.co/
>>>>
>>>> Do we have any thing to say on this?
>>>>
>>>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Apr  9 18:46:35 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:46:35 +0500
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <o2wf65fb55e1004091013md87df356o32d1dacd835dc53a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4BBC6867.9050700@cafonso.ca>
	 <183592.92132.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <4BBC8181.20000@cafonso.ca>
	 <515787.67198.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	 <n2t701af9f71004072310ia45df46emc3f8bc21f0786772@mail.gmail.com>
	 <o2wf65fb55e1004091013md87df356o32d1dacd835dc53a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p2q701af9f71004091546v36d96983jc83fb3130bf04a35@mail.gmail.com>

True McTim

and now I get where you are coming from. Yes we should definitely have
a concrete workshop on these issues and I think if start working on
this we will able to achieve some good amount of participation as well
generate lots of interest.

Are you willing to take lead on this?


On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:13 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> All,.
>
> We know all of this, but my question was, do WE have anything to say about it?
>
> Does the IGC want to make a statement or at least have a workshop on
> this?  Seems to me that this is much more of a real IG issuemuch  than
> the proposed IGC wkshops.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This may be interesting to many as it can serve as case study from the
>> developing world:
>>
>> There are many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world.
>> For example in the case of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for .pk was
>> given in the time of IANA to a Pakistani based in the US who has now
>> come back to Pakistan. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was under an IANA
>> allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a
>> country of 170 million plus population the following are the domain
>> registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered:
>>
>> stats for PKNIC
>> 2010-04-07:
>> domains: 29557
>> nameservers: 1179
>>
>> There is consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people are reluctant to take
>> over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a
>> period of two years for $25 a domain whereas a TLD can be acquired for
>> only $16 for two years. Each time the debate on decentralization of
>> PKNIC comes up, PKNIC has connection in the high up places and is
>> easily able to revoke such efforts.
>>
>> When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some
>> of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members
>> fell for it and felt so honoured to be included in the board that they
>> forgot what the actual Internet Governance problems were. They still
>> continue to participate in the IGC but are prone to PKNIC interests
>> which of course is a very big drawback.
>>
>> PKNIC has occasionally broken down in its service with outages
>> sometimes over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain
>> interests from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the local
>> and international communities as visible publicly here:
>> http://public.icann.org/node/343.
>>
>> PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through a public-private partnership
>> between civil society, academia, private sector and govt
>> multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people are more
>> oriented to acquire TLD domains as per today the total TLD domains in
>> the country stand at approximately:
>>
>> Total Domains in Pakistan : 41,380
>> (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK)
>>
>> IF we look at our neighbouring country India, their ccTLD runs as a
>> multistakeholder partnership due to which they have more than half a
>> million local domains. Similarly their TLD registrations are also at
>> the same number:
>> Total Domains in India : 559,213
>> (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN)
>>
>> This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize their positions
>> in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following
>> ways:
>>
>> 1. No control over ccTLD monopolies
>> 2. Access low-cost ccTLD
>> 3. Have to buy more TLD instead of ccTLD
>> 4. Less consumer choices
>> 5. Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high
>> 6. Lesser opportunities for local initiative growth (with respect to
>> building local online activities backed by local domains)
>> 7. Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator can
>> influence govt and other groups to host their GLTDs/IDNs under the
>> same infrastructure.
>>
>> Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be
>> benefiting a handful.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Fouad Bajwa
>>

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Fri Apr  9 19:41:24 2010
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Fri,  9 Apr 2010 16:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] WSIS FORUM 2010 10-14 May Geneva
Message-ID: <sympa.1270856379.31746.559@lists.cpsr.org>

 *** TODAY ***

EXECUTIVE BRIEFING on WSIS FORUM 2010
ITU Headquarters, Room C
9 April 2010, 15:00-16:30
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/exec_brief.html

Please read the 'Briefing Note' for further information.
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/consultations/Briefing-Note.pdf

Download 'Presentation'
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/consultations/WSIS-FORUM-2010-Executive-Briefing.ppt

- FOCUS -

WSIS FORUM 2010
10-14 May Geneva:
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/

ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP are pleased to invite you to the WSIS Forum 2010
scheduled to be held from 10 to 14 of May 2010 at the ITU Headquarters, Geneva,
Switzerland. This event builds upon the tradition of annual WSIS May meetings,
and its new format is the result of open consultations with all WSIS
Stakeholders.

The Forum will offer participants a series of diverse interactions, including
high-level debates addressing critical issues to the WSIS implementation and
follow-up in multi-stakeholder set-ups, WSIS Action Line facilitation meetings,
thematic workshops, kick-off meetings for new initiatives and projects,
knowledge exchanges facilitating networking among the participants, and others.
The forum will provide structured opportunities to network, learn and to
participate in multi-stakeholder discussions and consultations on WSIS
implementation.

Following the outcomes of the 2009 WSIS Action Line Facilitators meeting as
well as following the exchange of views among several WSIS stakeholders, the
organizers of the WSIS Forum, ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP decided to call for
an Open Consultation Process regarding the thematic focus of the Forum in the
year 2010. The consultation was announced on 5 January 2010 and was structured
in three steps as follows

• Online discussions (5 January – 5 February 2010 )
• Submission of official contributions (5 February 2010 ) 
• Final review meeting (10 February 2010)

-

WSIS Stocktaking Platform

WSIS Stocktaking is a publicly-accessible database of ICT-related
implementation activities, initiated during the Tunis phase of WSIS. WSIS
Stocktaking Database has become an effective tool for the exchange of
information on the projects in relation to the implementation of the 11 Action
Lines. It is worth mentioning that many of entries reflect more than one
flagship initiative and project carried out by the WSIS Stakeholders. Read
more. All Stakeholders are welcomed: Governments, International Organizations,
Private Sector, Civil Society, Others.

http://groups.itu.int/Default.aspx?tabid=740

-

Accompanying Forms:

Exhibition
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/consultations/Exhibition_Request_Form.doc

Kick-Off Meetings
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/consultations/Kick-Off_Meeting_Request_Form.doc

Knowledge Exchanges
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/consultations/Knowledge_Exchange_Request_Form.doc

Workshops
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/consultations/Workshop_Request_Form_WSIS-2010.doc

Stocktaking
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/consultations/WSIS-Stocktaking-Questionnaire-2010.doc

---
-30-

PS.: 
Is there a link to REGISTRATION FOR Internet Governance Forum 2010 Vilnius
Lithuania, available yet?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From katitza at eff.org  Fri Apr  9 19:43:05 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:43:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's
In-Reply-To: <1270029058.3121.777.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <042601cad09d$34f932b0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1270029058.3121.777.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <4BBFBB89.6080002@eff.org>

Dear Anriette,

I am tentatively planning to attend to the meeting.

Best,

Katitza

On 3/31/10 2:50 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Thanks very much for these notes, Thomas.
>
> I am fairly confident that the CSTD bureau will ask for the SG's report.
> And we should encourage them to.
>
> Who is plannning to attend, or participate remotely in the CSTD this
> year?
>
> APC plans to be there.
>
> Anriette
>
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:21 +0200, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>    
>> Dear Thomas
>>
>> thanks very very much.
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com]
>> Gesendet: Mi 31.03.2010 08:41
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were
>> stripped from my earlier version.
>>
>> Internet Governance - IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN
>> March 30, 2010
>>
>> The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN
>> Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and
>> Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided.
>>
>> Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet
>> Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of
>> Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion
>> arising from his former position as China's Ambassador to the U.N., and the
>> controversies about China's oversight of that nation's Internet resources,
>> he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real
>> interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don't
>> care."
>>
>> He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations.
>> I'll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the
>> history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold."
>> After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt,
>> Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding
>> statements by Mr. Sha.
>>
>> > From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] -
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> How The Review Process Will Unfold
>>
>> When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which
>> time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The
>> Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its
>> merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More
>> precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN
>> Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the
>> Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of
>> its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>> regard." Those five years have now come to an end.
>>
>> The formal consultations were initiated by an online process...
>>
>> A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for
>> public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire.
>> Contributions were received from Governments... Comments were also received
>> from a number of individuals.
>>
>> In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants
>> during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the
>> consultation 47 speakers...
>>
>> Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due
>> to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were
>> submitted after the consultations.
>>
>> The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period
>> from July to December 2009 was thus 118.
>>
>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and
>> describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet
>> governance. They are:
>>
>> 1. Governments;
>>
>> 2. The private sector;
>>
>> 3. Civic society;
>>
>> 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic
>> and technical communities within those stakeholder groups...
>>
>> Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles
>> adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to
>> building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information
>> Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase,
>> reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform
>> for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard.
>>
>> What stakeholders have said
>>
>> [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.]
>>
>> Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General
>>
>> It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the
>> Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions
>> expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations.
>>
>> Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to
>> the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of
>> the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for
>> development.
>>
>> The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the
>> IGF.
>>
>> Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the
>> Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for
>> consideration.
>>
>> As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were
>> decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request
>> that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any
>> subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the
>> Secretary-General to the CSTD.
>>
>> In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early
>> this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation
>> of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD.
>>
>> While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the
>> broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the
>> implementation of WSIS.
>>
>> Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of
>> ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of
>> the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General
>> Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into
>> the UN's 6 languages.]
>>
>> The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the
>> Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a
>> decision by Member States.
>>
>> Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations
>> of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the
>> Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21
>> May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."]
>>
>> However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the
>> documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in
>> unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will
>> not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go
>> through editing, translation and production processes.
>>
>> So the issue before us is two-fold - a decision by member states as to
>> whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted
>> first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the
>> recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official
>> languages.
>>
>> At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share
>> whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if
>> invited.
>>
>> Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about
>> the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation...
>>
>> Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities.
>>
>> Yemen - presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See
>> http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points,
>> which I paraphrase:
>>
>> 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly
>> regardless of other fora that might also discuss it.
>>
>> 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years.
>>
>> 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant
>> public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet
>> resources..."
>>
>> 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental
>> bodies.
>>
>> 5. LDC's should be more involved than in the past.
>>
>> 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so
>> as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements,
>> mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to
>> work under the auspices of the UN.
>>
>> EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The
>> CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the
>> preliminary note's "could" be circulated status be changed to "will."
>>
>> Egypt - They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of
>> IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support
>> for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed.
>>
>> Sri Lanka - Support continuation of IGF.
>>
>> Canada - Supports IGF continuation.
>>
>> U.S. - Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs.
>> Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has
>> been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes
>> can be circulated prior to CSTD.
>>
>> U.K. - 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated
>> prior to CSTD.
>>
>> Mr. Sha Comment - As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an
>> English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a
>> unanimous call for this.
>>
>> France - Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting
>> but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.]
>>
>> Norway - Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process
>> was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He
>> referred to a SG progress report in 2008.
>>
>> Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly:
>>
>> 193 members of General Assembly
>>
>> 54 members of ECOSOC
>>
>> 43 members of CSTD.
>>
>> ICC (International Chamber of Commerce - Supports continuation of IGF.
>>
>> Mr. Sha - CSTD can be helpful but it can't supplant the work of the General
>> Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which
>> that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also
>> needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One
>> objection would probably stop him from releasing it.
>>
>> End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>      
>
>    


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Apr 10 04:07:17 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:07:17 +0500
Subject: [governance] Interesting term for China and Pakistan with regards
 to censoring!
Message-ID: <o2j701af9f71004100107jf5597cb8md417e848d59989b8@mail.gmail.com>

A very interesting articles that has given a funny but usable name to
how China and Pakistan pull off their filtering:

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/04/09/is-china-testing-cybernukes/

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 10 08:29:13 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:59:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] Recent briefing in NY on IGF review
In-Reply-To: <o2j701af9f71004100107jf5597cb8md417e848d59989b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <o2j701af9f71004100107jf5597cb8md417e848d59989b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC06F19.2050109@itforchange.net>

The full text of Under-Secretary General's briefing is enclosed.

Perhaps the most important part is where he summarizes the views that 
came out of the 'formal review' at IGF Sharm. To quote from the speech:

        *What stakeholders have said*
        There are a number of issues that Forum participants and others
        have brought to the
        attention of the Secretary-General. At Sharm El Sheikh, there
        was support for continuing the IGF
        as it is, and support for continuing the IGF subject to a number
        of conditions.

        Most of the speakers who supported improvements wanted the IGF
        to refocus its
        attention on points such as the following:

            * International public policy issues;
            * Capacity-building;
            * Participation by developing countries;
            * Improved transparency;
            * Improved communications; and
            * More visibility for outcomes, and possibly the ability to
              make recommendations.

(quote ends)

Apparently there isn't any danger of the IGF disappearing. Negotiations 
however may take place on text in the General Assembly resolution which 
renews the mandate on some of the points listed above. Also i dont see 
any real danger of ITU takeover or any such thing.

Parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/6ab300fb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Briefing.for.MS.on.the.question.of.the.IGF_FINAL.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 313893 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/6ab300fb/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Sat Apr 10 09:43:27 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:13:27 -0430
Subject: [governance] Recent briefing in NY on IGF review
In-Reply-To: <4BC06F19.2050109@itforchange.net>
References: <o2j701af9f71004100107jf5597cb8md417e848d59989b8@mail.gmail.com> <4BC06F19.2050109@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4BC0807F.9030002@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/a41b90a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Apr 10 10:14:21 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
Message-ID: <274666.40716.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>


Right on the money here. The extent of control and management over Country Codes is a cornerstone principal that most other Internet Governance can draw from. "How should existing legitimate governments take care of their assigned namespace?"  Within this lies all the questions - probably not answers-- that we can have on Generic/General international namespace.
 
ICANN through circumstance was tasked with first attempting to set standards in the commercializing generic area and have migrated into the area of ccTLDs. In this case bad heavenly planning. Had the internet gods planned it better it would have been reversed.
 
Acadamia controlled Country Codes, Outsourced, Ministry of Culture, Technology and even military are all methods used by countries. Within each are lessons learned and mistakes not yet made. If we do not learn from them we are wasting valuable human experience.
If we do not help them we are again wasting valuable human experience.
 
Globalization, cultural integrity, inane and inherint rights, civil liberties

--- On Fri, 4/9/10, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:


From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 5:13 PM


All,.

We know all of this, but my question was, do WE have anything to say about it?

Does the IGC want to make a statement or at least have a workshop on
this?  Seems to me that this is much more of a real IG issuemuch  than
the proposed IGC wkshops.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> This may be interesting to many as it can serve as case study from the
> developing world:
>
> There are many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world.
> For example in the case of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for .pk was
> given in the time of IANA to a Pakistani based in the US who has now
> come back to Pakistan. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was under an IANA
> allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a
> country of 170 million plus population the following are the domain
> registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered:
>
> stats for PKNIC
> 2010-04-07:
> domains: 29557
> nameservers: 1179
>
> There is consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people are reluctant to take
> over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a
> period of two years for $25 a domain whereas a TLD can be acquired for
> only $16 for two years. Each time the debate on decentralization of
> PKNIC comes up, PKNIC has connection in the high up places and is
> easily able to revoke such efforts.
>
> When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some
> of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members
> fell for it and felt so honoured to be included in the board that they
> forgot what the actual Internet Governance problems were. They still
> continue to participate in the IGC but are prone to PKNIC interests
> which of course is a very big drawback.
>
> PKNIC has occasionally broken down in its service with outages
> sometimes over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain
> interests from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the local
> and international communities as visible publicly here:
> http://public.icann.org/node/343.
>
> PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through a public-private partnership
> between civil society, academia, private sector and govt
> multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people are more
> oriented to acquire TLD domains as per today the total TLD domains in
> the country stand at approximately:
>
> Total Domains in Pakistan : 41,380
> (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK)
>
> IF we look at our neighbouring country India, their ccTLD runs as a
> multistakeholder partnership due to which they have more than half a
> million local domains. Similarly their TLD registrations are also at
> the same number:
> Total Domains in India : 559,213
> (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN)
>
> This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize their positions
> in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following
> ways:
>
> 1. No control over ccTLD monopolies
> 2. Access low-cost ccTLD
> 3. Have to buy more TLD instead of ccTLD
> 4. Less consumer choices
> 5. Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high
> 6. Lesser opportunities for local initiative growth (with respect to
> building local online activities backed by local domains)
> 7. Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator can
> influence govt and other groups to host their GLTDs/IDNs under the
> same infrastructure.
>
> Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be
> benefiting a handful.
>
> Best Regards
> Fouad Bajwa
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, David Goldstein
> <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Carlos,
>>
>> Any registrar that registers .DE domain names can provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this can be a headache. Nominet has no restrictions I am aware of. AuDA has restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with their work.
>>
>> And when there are over 13 million domains, such as .DE and over 8 million (.UK) it *IS* much harder to get your preferred domain name than say, if there are over one million (.AU and .CA).
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
>> Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>>
>> David, some additional comments below.
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> David Goldstein wrote:
>>> Carlos et al,
>> [...]
>>> Some have a requirement for a local contact as part of the
>>> registration process, but this is often easily provided by a
>>> registrar. And given that the world's number one ccTLD and probably
>>> number 2 ccTLD, .DE and .UK respectively, allow people from around
>>> the world to register domain names in their ccTLDs and the world
>>> hasn't fallen in, then it's not too big a problem.
>>
>> Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific
>> policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires a legal
>> German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that
>> have legal capacity) not located in Germany to register .de domains.
>> There is, however, a condition, namely that they must appoint an
>> administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who has a postal
>> address at which it is possible to serve documents (i.e. not a mere P.O.
>> box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally
>> authorized by the domain holder to receive service of official or court
>> documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German
>> Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of
>> Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The reason for this measure is
>> to ensure that if any party has a legal claim to pursue, it is not made
>> more difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents
>> in another country, which is often a long, drawn-out process."
>>
>> Not sure about AuDA either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of
>> Canadian citizenship or a legal address in Canada.
>>
>>> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is
>>> harder for residents to get their own ccTLD domain.
>>
>> Not sure about this. I think it might even become easier, although they
>> will have to compete for certain addresses with global registrants. My
>> point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the
>> original purpose of having ccTLDs as the realm of national identities in
>> the domain name system. Otherwise, let us all join GNSO :)
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ---- From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> Sent: Wed,
>>> 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 PM Subject: Re: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi McTim, I can start by saying: cheap and quick way to get a gTLD...
>>> :) There is a business group which convinces a community (or their
>>> government, as I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to
>>> properly and widely debate this) that their national identity on the
>>> Internet is no longer relevant and let you take over and convert
>>> their ccTLD into a commodity for the international domain market.
>>>
>>> In the case of Colombia, it is quite strange. It is a country with 44
>>>  million people, relatively high HDI and the third largest South
>>> American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any
>>> significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is far from
>>> being Tuvalu. On the other hand, given the size of the economy and
>>> Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a
>>> non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep their ccTLD in the
>>> national commons would not succeed.
>>>
>>> But this is my view and I am not a Colombian (just a Latin American),
>>>  so... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co no longer points to a
>>> Colombian Internet space.
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> McTim wrote:
>>>> http://www.cointernet.co/
>>>>
>>>> Do we have any thing to say on this?
>>>>
>>>> This type of thing would be a fruitful workshop topic IMO.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/4d80acd1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Apr 10 13:15:13 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Recent briefing in NY on IGF review
In-Reply-To: <4BC0807F.9030002@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74341.57813.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I think you have some salient points here Ginger but I take the liberty of bastardizing them to make my point. Mine in Italics. Of course my views are in the extreme here to give them "emphasis".


--- On Sat, 4/10/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


....we do not have a clear direction on a statement theme. Statement Theme? Why not simply a statement?*  Can we take this opportunity to focus our priorities and move forward? This seems backwards - should governance be about creating priorities - or addressing them?

There have been some excellent discussions lately. Please post your concrete ideas How about just stop there. Posting concrete ideas, is or should be a goal in itself for issue(s) to address. I suggest we choose one or two ideas for strong emphasis, rather than making a general statement. It does seem more effective. Agreed here but we probably should just dedicate more time to Ideas -- Let others take emphasis

Ideas?
Best, Ginger
*Themes indicate fittling in,, not exploring new or thinking outside.





 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/6e97ddb2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Apr 10 15:18:42 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:18:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net>
 <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>
 	<4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net>
 <j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701D5E09F91@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Do you deny that the root of Internet numbering resources are a
> natural monopoly?  How about names?  If it wasn't then I could have
> itforchange.net, and there would be chaos in terms of who is who.

I'll deny it. That's because I actually know what the term "natural monopoly" means.

Like many techies with no background in political economy, you are confusing the need for coordination and exclusive assignment with a monopoly in the supply of a service. They are distinct. And the distinction is significant. 

Natural monopoly theory asserts that a service supplier is a monopoly because it has the lowest marginal cost across the entire market, due to economies of scale and scope. It becomes immediately clear that a single entity (IANA) almost certainly does not have economies of scale and scope in the supply of registration services sufficient to make it the exclusive supplier of such services. If they did, there would be only one such entity, and you should be arguing for the abolition of all RIRs. Indeed, taking the logic even farther you should argue that there should be no LIRs, either. All assignments should come directly from IANA. 

Doesn't sound so good, does it? So obviously what you intend to say is that the root should be coordinated to ensure global compatibility of addressing - not that the root is a "natural monopoly." And as we have learned from the liberalization of telecoms, there are numerous ways to retain universal connectivity while breaking up monopolies. 

These discussions would be a lot easier to have, and more productive, if the technical community was willing to listen to forms of expertise other than engineering and computer science. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Apr 10 15:27:46 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:27:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] On the topic of disclosure, openness, and the TABL
In-Reply-To: <3F25623E-B265-45E4-8D73-AE6FA0A84934@arin.net>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6DB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3F25623E-B265-45E4-8D73-AE6FA0A84934@arin.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701D5E09F92@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> 
> I am ARIN's President and CEO since June of last year; it is
> indeed a paid position (prior to then, I served as a Trustee
> and Chairman of the Board of ARIN for 12 years; trustees do

John,
Sorry. The question from me which triggered your response was rhetorical; its aim was to turn the tables on McTim's gambit, and call attention to the hypocrisy of people making a big deal about a small, short-term consulting contract while some people on this list make all of their income and owe all of their organizational allegiances to governance organizations that are on a par with the ITU. 

We all know who you are and what you do. You have a great deal of knowledge about IG issues and often you make important and good points. I am happy you are here and think we all generally benefit from our exchanges. If the RIR folks can overcome the Dr. Stangelove-like twitch that afflicts them every time they hear the words ITU we will get along just fine. 

--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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Apr 10 15:40:57 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:40:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
In-Reply-To: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <o2wf65fb55e1004070329l7b59b3fy185773e7cf7eb02b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701D5E09F93@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:29 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] privatising ccTLDs
> 
> http://www.cointernet.co/
> 
> Do we have any thing to say on this?

This is old news. The granddaddy of so-called "privatized" ccTLDs (a better name would be quasi-generic TLDs, because many normal ccTLDs are run or even quasi-owned by nonprofits) is .TV of Tuvalu. And .cc of the Cocos and Keeling Islands. In both cases, the local authority made the decision that it would rather market the name globally and get financial benefits than run it as a straight ccTLD. Which was quite justifiable, given the tiny size of their domestic internet economies. Both have been purchased by VeriSign, which owns .com.

The only disturbing thing about .CO in my mind is their rather explicit play as a confusingly similar substitute for .com, and some rather open moves to typosquat or profit from that confusion. There are two sides to that story - on one hand it is good to have an alternative/competitor to .com, on the other hand confusion and typo-squatting are not good and can serve as a way of shaking down the TM owners who have the .com names. 

Another interesting aspect of this is how "national sovereignty" serves as a shield for behavior that would be completely illegal and ethically unacceptable if done by anyone other than a putative ccTLD. The mantle of "sovereignty" - which often has important and legitimate uses as a form of distributing political power - can also be abused and exploited so that a ccTLD operator gets the best of both worlds - the profits and marketing ability of the commercial world and the immunity from law associated with states. 

--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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Apr 10 15:47:48 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:47:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop on routing and IG
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701D5E09F94@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

The Internet Governance Project is putting together a workshop proposal on routing and Internet governance. You may or may not be aware of the major policy issues that revolve around routing practices and technologies, but believe me they exist and are increasingly important.

In assembling a list of experts to invite to this workshop, I was struck by how completely dominated the list is by North Americans. This could reflect the way the world is right now, or it could just reflect my own ignorance. So I am soliciting your help in locating people from the developing world, Europe, policy makers, and others in an attempt to break away from "the usual suspects". Anyone interested please contact me privately.

--MM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/cf7a58be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From toml at communisphere.com  Sat Apr 10 23:28:36 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:28:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact,
 Best Practices, Governance
Message-ID: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>

Having spent a decade working toward the time when TLDs would become available to cities, and with the time of their arrival (possibly) at hand, little guidance has been made available to those interested in developing TLDs that serve the interest of city residents and organizations. I'd like to draw on the wisdom of the list in formulating a proposal on city-TLD best practices and governance for the IGF's Vilnius Conference. I think the recent McTim thread "privatizing cc TLDs" primed the discussion on this issue.

Below is a draft of an IGF proposal for Vilnius. Comments appreciated.

Tom Lowenhaupt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: City-TLD Best Practices and Governance

Objective: Cities have scant precedent and little guidance to draw upon on the features and applications of their "soon to be available" TLDs. This workshop will explore that lacuna looking at four areas: 1. It will present relevant experiences from country code and sponsored TLDs, highlighting successful domain name allocation practices; 2. It will propose a mechanism for engaging expertise from a variety of disciplines, e.g., software engineering, city planning, sociology, economics, and political science, to prepare a primer for developing these critical Internet resources; 3. It will explore structures for sharing best practices; 4. Finally, it will explore governance options for city-TLDs.

Format: The workshop will begin with a 10 minute history of city TLDs, their status, and an introduction of the panelists. Followed by a 15 minute introduction of successful development experiences from country code and sponsored TLDs; 15 minutes reviewing processes for identifying and engaging discipline experts in a the preparation of a city-TLD primer; 15 minutes to explore structures for best practice sharing; and 15 minutes to identify city-TLD governance structures; followed by 50 minutes for comments and questions from workshop participants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/6be59905/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tech.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100410/6be59905/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Apr 11 02:15:20 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 07:15:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
 Impact, Best Practices, Governance
In-Reply-To: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
Message-ID: <nvh4QU14jWwLFAhw@perry.co.uk>

In message <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0 at powuseren2ihcx>, at 23:28:36 
on Sat, 10 Apr 2010, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com> writes
>Having spent a decade working toward the time when TLDs would become
>available to cities, and with the time of their arrival (possibly) at
>hand, little guidance has been made available to those interested in
>developing TLDs that serve the interest of city residents and
>organizations. I'd like to draw on the wisdom of the list in
>formulating a proposal on city-TLD best practices and governance for
>the IGF's Vilnius Conference. I think the recent McTim thread
>"privatizing cc TLDs" primed the discussion on this issue.
> 
>Below is a draft of an IGF proposal for Vilnius. Comments appreciated.
> 
>Tom Lowenhaupt
> 
>Title: City-TLD Best Practices and Governance
>
>Objective: Cities have scant precedent and little guidance to draw upon
>on the features and applications of their "soon to be available" TLDs.
>This workshop will explore that lacuna looking at four areas: 1. It
>will present relevant experiences from country code and sponsored TLDs,
>highlighting successful domain name allocation practices; 2. It will
>propose a mechanism for engaging expertise from a variety of
>disciplines, e.g., software engineering, city planning, sociology,
>economics, and political science, to prepare a primer for developing
>these critical Internet resources; 3. It will explore structures for
>sharing best practices; 4. Finally, it will explore governance options
>for city-TLDs.
>
>Format: The workshop will begin with a 10 minute history of city TLDs,
>their status, and an introduction of the panelists. Followed by a 15
>minute introduction of successful development experiences from country
>code and sponsored TLDs; 15 minutes reviewing processes for identifying
>and engaging discipline experts in a the preparation of a city-TLD
>primer; 15 minutes to explore structures for best practice sharing; and
>15 minutes to identify city-TLD governance structures; followed by 50
>minutes for comments and questions from workshop participants.

It sounds interesting, but if (and this is a serious IGF Governance 
point) the IGF is supposed to be non-duplicative, then the discussion 
above would normally be an extremely close fit with an ICANN meeting. 
Indeed I have sat through a couple of very similar sessions there.

If you consider going ahead at the IGF, you might want to include a 
discussion of how you handle the sunrise period (there are several 
different models been tried out in the past) as this is possibly the 
most challenging aspect[1].

But that's only after you've successfully got your City-tld. The part 
which fascinates me the most (just a personal interest of course, I have 
long collected interesting telephone numbers, car licence plates, and 
yes even domain names) is how competing claims will be assessed.

For example, the City of Perry with the best Google ranking is in 
Georgia[2], USA, closely followed by others in Michigan, Utah, Oklahoma 
and Florida. Which would have the "best claim"?

[1] For example, what would it take for Air Berlin not to be a shoe-in 
for air.berlin, and would a decision like that be based on the prior 
registration of trademarks, a community policy, or something else (first 
to apply, winner of an auction, etc)?

[2] With three different domain names already: perry-ga.gov, perryga.com 
and perry.georgia.gov, so maybe they won't want a fourth.
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From toml at communisphere.com  Sun Apr 11 03:37:49 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:37:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
 Impact, Best Practices, Governance
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <nvh4QU14jWwLFAhw@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>

Roland,

Here's something I wrote a while ago that sought to put the Net (and ICANN) into an historic perspective with regard to cities. 
  Imagine that in 1983 Vint Cerf had visited a global city like New York, climbed the steps to City Hall and said to Mayor Koch that he and Jon Postel had begun thinking about an Internet enhancement that would make it easier to find the cities digital resources. That they were thinking of calling it the Domain Name System (DNS) and using names such as .com, .org and .edu. 

  And imagine Vint explaining his vision about this new technology's prospect for addressing the multiplicity of city needs; concluding with a plea that the mayor gather the world's smartest minds in New York City, help detail a desired DNS's feature-set and in the process develop a model that other cities might follow.

  But as we all know, no one knocked on that City Hall door and the DNS was created without considering its impact on cities. And when it escaped from the lab, the technology spread like a virus and changed the world for better and for worse. 

  Remarkably, the DNS opportunity is again at hand. ICANN will deliver on its key mission in 2010 and we'll soon see cities sporting new TLDs such as .nyc, .berlin, and .paris.
Let me note that this was not written with the intent of criticizing these Internet pioneers, merely to highlight an area where, with omnipotent 20/20 hindsight, one might observe Net imperfections needing attention.

Roland, with all due respect, I've never heard ICANN dealing with any of the issues I've proposed for the IGF Workshop. Yes, they have encouraged the development of "Perfect Sunrise" guidelines that warrant consideration, and they uncovered that there's a Paris in France as well as Texas. And to its credit, ICANN has agreed that cities should have access to TLDs. But city-TLD governance, best practices, and a primer for city-TLDs - it's just not in their scope. ICANN's concern is commerce not cities. City-TLDs are (IMHO) perfect for an IGF workshop.

Tom Lowenhaupt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roland Perry" <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact, Best Practices, Governance


...

It sounds interesting, but if (and this is a serious IGF Governance 
point) the IGF is supposed to be non-duplicative, then the discussion 
above would normally be an extremely close fit with an ICANN meeting. 
Indeed I have sat through a couple of very similar sessions there.

If you consider going ahead at the IGF, you might want to include a 
discussion of how you handle the sunrise period (there are several 
different models been tried out in the past) as this is possibly the 
most challenging aspect[1].

But that's only after you've successfully got your City-tld. The part 
which fascinates me the most (just a personal interest of course, I have 
long collected interesting telephone numbers, car licence plates, and 
yes even domain names) is how competing claims will be assessed.

For example, the City of Perry with the best Google ranking is in 
Georgia[2], USA, closely followed by others in Michigan, Utah, Oklahoma 
and Florida. Which would have the "best claim"?

[1] For example, what would it take for Air Berlin not to be a shoe-in 
for air.berlin, and would a decision like that be based on the prior 
registration of trademarks, a community policy, or something else (first 
to apply, winner of an auction, etc)?

[2] With three different domain names already: perry-ga.gov, perryga.com 
and perry.georgia.gov, so maybe they won't want a fourth.
-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/30abeb43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ocl at gih.com  Sun Apr 11 04:16:45 2010
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:16:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact,
In-Reply-To: <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <nvh4QU14jWwLFAhw@perry.co.uk> <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
Message-ID: <4BC1856D.9050301@gih.com>

Hello Thomas,

On 11/04/2010 09:37, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote :
> Roland,
>  
> Here's something I wrote a while ago that sought to put the Net (and
> ICANN) into an historic perspective with regard to cities.
>
>     Imagine that in 1983 Vint Cerf had visited a global city like New
>     York, climbed the steps to City Hall and said to Mayor Koch that
>     he and Jon Postel had begun thinking about an Internet enhancement
>     that would make it easier to find the cities digital resources.
>     That they were thinking of calling it the Domain Name System (DNS)
>     and using names such as .com, .org and .edu.
>
>     And imagine Vint explaining his vision about this new technology's
>     prospect for addressing the multiplicity of city needs; concluding
>     with a plea that the mayor gather the world's smartest minds in
>     New York City, help detail a desired DNS's feature-set and in the
>     process develop a model that other cities might follow.
>
>     But as we all know, no one knocked on that City Hall door and the
>     DNS was created without considering its impact on cities. And when
>     it escaped from the lab, the technology spread like a virus and
>     changed the world for better and for worse.
>
>     Remarkably, the DNS opportunity is again at hand. ICANN will
>     deliver on its key mission in 2010 and we'll soon see cities
>     sporting new TLDs such as .nyc, .berlin, and .paris.
>
> Let me note that this was not written with the intent of
> criticizing these Internet pioneers, merely to highlight an area
> where, with omnipotent 20/20 hindsight, one might observe Net
> imperfections needing attention.
>  
> Roland, with all due respect, I've never heard ICANN dealing with any
> of the issues I've proposed for the IGF Workshop. Yes, they have
> encouraged the development of "Perfect Sunrise" guidelines that
> warrant consideration, and they uncovered that there's a Paris in
> France as well as Texas. And to its credit, ICANN has agreed that
> cities should have access to TLDs. But city-TLD governance, best
> practices, and a primer for city-TLDs - it's just not in their scope.
> ICANN's concern is commerce not cities. City-TLDs are (IMHO) perfect
> for an IGF workshop.
>  
>

I agree with you although I wonder whether you wish to open such a can
of worms. Your aim appears to be to have an informational session about
city TLDs - perhaps working with others to write a set of best practices?
You'll then have to answer questions of the type:
If there is a Paris in France and a Paris in US, why don't they use
paris.fr and paris.tx.us ?
Admittedly, how does .nyc relate to the already existing .nyc.ny.us ?
Roland's questions will also come up.

Are you ready to have a potentially heated session on this?

BTW, I'm completely neutral on the matter these days. If some
organisations wish to try their hand at new gTLDs, let them go ahead. If
I was to attend, I'd probably enjoy listening to a good debate.

Kind regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/9b6c06eb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Apr 11 04:28:48 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:28:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
 Impact, Best Practices, Governance
In-Reply-To: <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
 <nvh4QU14jWwLFAhw@perry.co.uk>
 <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
Message-ID: <jsvJwPBAhYwLFABe@perry.co.uk>

In message <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0 at powuseren2ihcx>, at 03:37:49 
on Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com> writes
>Roland,
> 
>Here's something I wrote a while ago that sought to put the Net (and
>ICANN) into an historic perspective with regard to cities.
>  Imagine that in 1983 Vint Cerf had visited a global city like New
>  York, climbed the steps to City Hall and said to Mayor Koch that he
>  and Jon Postel had begun thinking about an Internet enhancement that
>  would make it easier to find the cities digital resources. That they
>  were thinking of calling it the Domain Name System (DNS) and using
>  names such as .com, .org and .edu.
>
>  And imagine Vint explaining his vision about this new technology's
>  prospect for addressing the multiplicity of city needs; concluding
>  with a plea that the mayor gather the world's smartest minds in New
>  York City, help detail a desired DNS's feature-set and in the
>  process develop a model that other cities might follow.
>
>  But as we all know, no one knocked on that City Hall door and the
>  DNS was created without considering its impact on cities. And when
>  it escaped from the lab, the technology spread like a virus and
>  changed the world for better and for worse.
>
>  Remarkably, the DNS opportunity is again at hand. ICANN will deliver
>  on its key mission in 2010 and we'll soon see cities sporting new
>  TLDs such as .nyc, .berlin, and .paris.

But a single layer of name like that might not fully address the issue 
of collisions.

>Let me note that this was not written with the intent of criticizing these Internet pioneers, merely to highlight an area where, with
>omnipotent 20/20 hindsight, one might observe Net imperfections needing
>attention.

It's an issue that pervades the DNS, of course, even down to email 
user-names (if you can call that part of the DNS), and something which 
I've pondered over some 20 years now. If there's a neat way for Paris, 
France and Paris, Texas (I deliberately didn't use them as an example 
earlier, but now you've mentioned them...) to co-exist at the tld level, 
now's the time to suggest it.

>Roland, with all due respect, I've never heard ICANN dealing with any
>of the issues I've proposed for the IGF Workshop. 

What do you mean by "deal with"? And to some extent, what do you mean by 
"ICANN". The organisation has facilitated sessions for independent 
groups of people to discuss the specific issues (as well as general 
things like potential best practice for any kind of registry and 
registrar), and the GAC has gone into geographic names in some detail. I 
expect there's something about it in the DAG (but I haven't looked 
recently). I don't think it's all over yet, either.

>Yes, they have encouraged the development of "Perfect Sunrise" 
>guidelines that warrant consideration, and they uncovered that there's 
>a Paris in France as well as Texas. And to its credit, ICANN has agreed 
>that cities should have access to TLDs. But city-TLD governance, best 
>practices, and a primer for city-TLDs - it's just not in their scope.

I'd hope that something could be learnt, by City-tlds, from the work 
that's been done on abusive registrations, dispute resolution, and 
registry/registrar separation too. (You did ask for suggestions).

>ICANN's concern is commerce not cities. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "ICANN" here.

>City-TLDs are (IMHO) perfect for an IGF workshop.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do one.

Roland.

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Roland Perry" <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
>To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:15 AM
>Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
>Impact, Best Practices, Governance
>
>...
>
>It sounds interesting, but if (and this is a serious IGF Governance
>point) the IGF is supposed to be non-duplicative, then the discussion
>above would normally be an extremely close fit with an ICANN meeting.
>Indeed I have sat through a couple of very similar sessions there.
>
>If you consider going ahead at the IGF, you might want to include a
>discussion of how you handle the sunrise period (there are several
>different models been tried out in the past) as this is possibly the
>most challenging aspect[1].
>
>But that's only after you've successfully got your City-tld. The part
>which fascinates me the most (just a personal interest of course, I
>have
>long collected interesting telephone numbers, car licence plates, and
>yes even domain names) is how competing claims will be assessed.
>
>For example, the City of Perry with the best Google ranking is in
>Georgia[2], USA, closely followed by others in Michigan, Utah, Oklahoma
>and Florida. Which would have the "best claim"?
>
>[1] For example, what would it take for Air Berlin not to be a shoe-in
>for air.berlin, and would a decision like that be based on the prior
>registration of trademarks, a community policy, or something else
>(first
>to apply, winner of an auction, etc)?
>
>[2] With three different domain names already: perry-ga.gov,
>perryga.com
>and perry.georgia.gov, so maybe they won't want a fourth.
>--
>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
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Apr 11 05:48:56 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:48:56 +0800
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
 Impact, Best Practices, Governance
In-Reply-To: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
Message-ID: <81464D22-914D-4C36-B4B6-B41BD340D468@ciroap.org>

On 11/04/2010, at 11:28 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:

> Having spent a decade working toward the time when TLDs would become available to cities, and with the time of their arrival (possibly) at hand, little guidance has been made available to those interested in developing TLDs that serve the interest of city residents and organizations. I'd like to draw on the wisdom of the list in formulating a proposal on city-TLD best practices and governance for the IGF's Vilnius Conference. I think the recent McTim thread "privatizing cc TLDs" primed the discussion on this issue.
>  
> Below is a draft of an IGF proposal for Vilnius. Comments appreciated.

It would be a worthwhile workshop given the right panelists.  But are you looking for the IGC to put its name to this, or is it a workshop that you would organise, on which you are just seeking comments?

Excluding this one, we have three on the table:

1. Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
2. Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
3. Transnational enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy

Unless there are real objections, I think we should put them all forward now even though they are not fully-formed, so that we can leave our options open.  In all likelihood not all three will be accepted, and/or we will be asked to merge them with other workshops.  For this reason it is not worth agonising over the wording or the composition of the panels yet.

Please let me know if you object to this course of action - and also if you want to list your organisation as a co-organiser.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/8988215b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Apr 11 06:19:26 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:19:26 +1200
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact,
In-Reply-To: <4BC1856D.9050301@gih.com>
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
	 <nvh4QU14jWwLFAhw@perry.co.uk>
	 <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
	 <4BC1856D.9050301@gih.com>
Message-ID: <g2z83b95841004110319g4568f65ew5c3807734af766cd@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Olivier for putting this in perspective, your writing brings
clarity to the issues.

On 4/11/10, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> On 11/04/2010 09:37, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote :
>> Roland,
>>
>> Here's something I wrote a while ago that sought to put the Net (and
>> ICANN) into an historic perspective with regard to cities.
>>
>>     Imagine that in 1983 Vint Cerf had visited a global city like New
>>     York, climbed the steps to City Hall and said to Mayor Koch that
>>     he and Jon Postel had begun thinking about an Internet enhancement
>>     that would make it easier to find the cities digital resources.
>>     That they were thinking of calling it the Domain Name System (DNS)
>>     and using names such as .com, .org and .edu.
>>
>>     And imagine Vint explaining his vision about this new technology's
>>     prospect for addressing the multiplicity of city needs; concluding
>>     with a plea that the mayor gather the world's smartest minds in
>>     New York City, help detail a desired DNS's feature-set and in the
>>     process develop a model that other cities might follow.
>>
>>     But as we all know, no one knocked on that City Hall door and the
>>     DNS was created without considering its impact on cities. And when
>>     it escaped from the lab, the technology spread like a virus and
>>     changed the world for better and for worse.
>>
>>     Remarkably, the DNS opportunity is again at hand. ICANN will
>>     deliver on its key mission in 2010 and we'll soon see cities
>>     sporting new TLDs such as .nyc, .berlin, and .paris.
>>
>> Let me note that this was not written with the intent of
>> criticizing these Internet pioneers, merely to highlight an area
>> where, with omnipotent 20/20 hindsight, one might observe Net
>> imperfections needing attention.
>>
>> Roland, with all due respect, I've never heard ICANN dealing with any
>> of the issues I've proposed for the IGF Workshop. Yes, they have
>> encouraged the development of "Perfect Sunrise" guidelines that
>> warrant consideration, and they uncovered that there's a Paris in
>> France as well as Texas. And to its credit, ICANN has agreed that
>> cities should have access to TLDs. But city-TLD governance, best
>> practices, and a primer for city-TLDs - it's just not in their scope.
>> ICANN's concern is commerce not cities. City-TLDs are (IMHO) perfect
>> for an IGF workshop.
>>
>>
>
> I agree with you although I wonder whether you wish to open such a can
> of worms. Your aim appears to be to have an informational session about
> city TLDs - perhaps working with others to write a set of best practices?
> You'll then have to answer questions of the type:
> If there is a Paris in France and a Paris in US, why don't they use
> paris.fr and paris.tx.us ?
> Admittedly, how does .nyc relate to the already existing .nyc.ny.us ?
> Roland's questions will also come up.
>
> Are you ready to have a potentially heated session on this?
>
> BTW, I'm completely neutral on the matter these days. If some
> organisations wish to try their hand at new gTLDs, let them go ahead. If
> I was to attend, I'd probably enjoy listening to a good debate.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Apr 11 08:40:20 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:40:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
 Impact, Best Practices, Governance
In-Reply-To: <81464D22-914D-4C36-B4B6-B41BD340D468@ciroap.org>
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <81464D22-914D-4C36-B4B6-B41BD340D468@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <2ABF57C2-A944-46FA-8994-F7B460B75205@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Jeremy,

On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> 
> Unless there are real objections, I think we should put them all forward now even though they are not fully-formed, so that we can leave our options open.  In all likelihood not all three will be accepted, and/or we will be asked to merge them with other workshops.  For this reason it is not worth agonising over the wording or the composition of the panels yet.
> 
> Please let me know if you object to this course of action - and also if you want to list your organisation as a co-organiser.

Could you please recirculate the draft descriptions in separate subject lines/messages?

I suggest we allow a few days for reactions and consensus building.  The deadline's five days out, and historically there's been a certain amount of flexibility on the precise submission day anyway.

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/2ec02446/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Apr 11 09:04:53 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:04:53 +0800
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
 Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
Message-ID: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>

Description:
A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.

With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.

Format:
A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/a3ef370a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Apr 11 09:05:29 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:05:29 +0800
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 2: Successes and failures of
 Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
Message-ID: <3D000EA1-95F9-41ED-AC81-E5E414EC4458@ciroap.org>

Description:
This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.

In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?

Format:
The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/d3e5b971/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Apr 11 09:06:56 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:06:56 +0800
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnationa?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?l_enforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=96_Issues_of_r?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ights_and_democracy?=
Message-ID: <C289C964-BEE5-4451-8B8A-1475FFF95C6B@ciroap.org>

(Awaiting final text from Parminder, but here is his summary.)

Basically we will discuss issues that have come up around ACTA (for instance see the latest posting on IP watch at http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=10061  )  as the main focus. However some other issues may also come up - like Google - China stand-off, Google's appeal to US gov to consider global information flows as a trade issue and use trade related enforcements in this area, Google and others cutting off or limiting their services to countries on US's trade sanctions list (trade embargo issues and IG is mentioned in the Vilnius  program document), non availability of major online payment systems in countries like Pakistan etc .....

The attempt here is to move beyond the focus on governance of the basic technical/ logical  infrastructure  (ICANN etc) also to the governance of the emerging global information infrastructure. (At a still different level, though connected, is the governance of the social interactions/ networking infrastructure, but that is not something this workshop will get into).

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/8e3df124/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 11 09:26:50 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:56:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net>

Attempting a  quick first draft for the proposed workshop.

Proposed workshop title : 'Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement 
of a new information order -- Issues of rights and democracy'

Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm or 
order. In this respect, many technical issues interact with 
institutional frameworks around information and knowledge - like IP, but 
also FoE, cultural rights etc - to develop a unique and unprecedented 
global system of information and knowledge flows and controls. 
Trans-border institutional mechanism become a key issue in this regards 
- and trans-border enforcement of IP laws is a strongly contested 
subject right now. The pluri-lateral treaty 'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 
Act', currently being negotiated has been in the eye of the storm, both 
vis a vis local constituencies in the countries which are a part of the 
negotiation, and developing countries who fear that such treaties 
negotiated without their participation may become the default global 
institutional framework, including through bilateral FTAs .

Apart from IP issues, trans-border enforcement on and through the 
Internet also has implications for FoE and cultural rights regimes (For 
instance the recent UNECSO treaty on cultural goods).

The proposed workshop will address the above issues, specifically 
employing the lenses of rights (right to knowledge, FoE, cultural rights 
etc) and democracy (right to self determination and political 
participation).


Parminder



Parminder wrote:
> I suggest that we get into deeper IP and Internet debates, which 
> represent some of the most hotly contested issues today, and in which 
> area a lot of policy work is going on (ACTA for instance)
>
> Can we hold a workshop on ' Transnational enforcement of a new 
> information order -- Issues of rights and democracy'. (tentative title)
>
> Basically we will discuss issues that have come up around ACTA (for 
> instance see the latest posting on IP watch at 
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=10061  )  as the main focus. However 
> some other issues may also come up - like Google - China stand-off, 
> Google's appeal to US gov to consider global information flows as a 
> trade issue and use trade related enforcements in this area, Google 
> and others cutting off or limiting their services to countries on US's 
> trade sanctions list (trade embargo issues and IG is mentioned in the 
> Vilnius  program document), non availability of major online payment 
> systems in countries like Pakistan etc .....
>
> The attempt here is to move beyond the focus on governance of the 
> basic technical/ logical  infrastructure  (ICANN etc) also to the 
> governance of the emerging global information infrastructure. (At a 
> still different level, though connected, is the governance of the 
> social interactions/ networking infrastructure, but that is not 
> something this workshop will get into)
>
> The above is just illustrative of the proposed scope of the workshop. 
> Will try and put up a short write up for it separately. Parminder
>
>
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
>>> so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
>>> discourse.
>>>     
>>
>> Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway, there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal, but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>>
>> WORKSHOP 1
>> ==========
>>
>> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>>
>> Objective:
>> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>>
>> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.
>>
>> Format:
>> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.
>>
>> Organisers:
>> Internet Governance Caucus
>> [ISOC?]
>> [OECD?]
>>
>> Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>>
>>
>> WORKSHOP 2
>> ==========
>> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>>
>> Objective:
>> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.
>>
>> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision, and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?
>>
>> Format:
>> The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.
>>
>> Organisers:
>> Internet Governance Caucus
>> [Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
>> [Government of France?]
>> [Cisco?]
>>
>> Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...
>>
>>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/d90fcd57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Apr 11 12:53:48 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnational_e?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?nforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=E2=80=93_Issues_of_right?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s_and_democracy?=
In-Reply-To: <C289C964-BEE5-4451-8B8A-1475FFF95C6B@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <263277.44312.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Yesterday the quite esteemed Milton wrote on internet and trade: 
""These discussions would be a lot easier to have, and more productive, if the technical community was willing to listen to forms of expertise other than engineering and computer science."" 

Our Internet Civil Society would prosper at much higher levels if this true digital divide were not so omnipresent. Milton uses the term "listen to" I would heighten it to a level of Respect. If the logic/science professionals would look at their own expertise and respect the same level of expetise in the softer social sciences we would be much closer to true respectful interfacing.  Somehow it is like the common man who looks at a beautifully built and sculpted athlete and respects and admires such. But show him an intellectual sitting under a tree contemplating and he thinks that is a waste of time. Internet Governance must begin to respect the level of abilities and studies of those in the more philosophical, nuance and social sciences. But more, they must learn to respect them as they do themselves.

--- On Sun, 4/11/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Sunday, April 11, 2010, 1:06 PM



(Awaiting final text from Parminder, but here is his summary.)

Basically we will discuss issues that have come up around ACTA (for instance see the latest posting on IP watch at http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=10061  )  as the main focus. However some other issues may also come up - like Google - China stand-off, Google's appeal to US gov to consider global information flows as a trade issue and use trade related enforcements in this area, Google and others cutting off or limiting their services to countries on US's trade sanctions list (trade embargo issues and IG is mentioned in the Vilnius  program document), non availability of major online payment systems in countries like Pakistan etc .....

The attempt here is to move beyond the focus on governance of the basic technical/ logical  infrastructure  (ICANN etc) also to the governance of the emerging global information infrastructure. (At a still different level, though connected, is the governance of the social interactions/ networking infrastructure, but that is not something this workshop will get into).







-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/7252eae7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Apr 11 13:04:38 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Look at this title -- 1: Revolutionary Internet
 Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
In-Reply-To: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <217323.52175.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I dare say that even the header here would scare most non techies away.  Note that a truly proper reading of this title lends one to think that "the Internet is Governing us".  Why does this forum insist on saying Internet Governance -- When it damn sure should be Governance of the Internet use.
Here again the lingua is so club oriented it is twisted to exclude those of Government Philosophy and include those of technical internet expertise.
 
Another quote from the famed Milton for a different post yesterday: ""Like many techies with no background in political economy, you are confusing the need for coordination and exclusive assignment with a monopoly in the supply of a service. They are distinct. And the distinction is significant.""  This egotistical refusal of the technical community to respect the social sciences enough to admit ignorance and just assume they know these things with out study and experience is an obvious failure of Respectful Interface.
Knowledge in Governance is not inate, we are not born with it, because we are doctorates in something else and very smart does not qualify us in this area. 


--- On Sun, 4/11/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Sunday, April 11, 2010, 1:04 PM



Description:
A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.

Format:
A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.







-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/ce2aa7f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From toml at communisphere.com  Sun Apr 11 13:42:05 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:42:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
 Impact, Best Practices, Governance
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <nvh4QU14jWwLFAhw@perry.co.uk> <059c01cad949$e55874e0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <4BC1856D.9050301@gih.com>
Message-ID: <068a01cad99e$4efb1b60$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>

Olivier,

The DNS was developed within a scope that saw surfboards, suburbia, and California sunshine as the desired future. Today, it's cities (or perhaps more accurately, urban areas) that are ascendant. Two points in that regard: U.N. stats indicate more than half of us now live in cities with the prediction of 66% by 2050; and planetary sustainability seems to lean toward the comparative efficiency of cities.

But yes, you are absolutely correct, name conflicts could be contentious in most instances and will be in some. However, I'd think the various Springfield's could support a disambiguation page, and perhaps index.paris could have a "Not looking for Paris France?" button. (For fun,  take this "One Name, Many Places" trivia quiz - http://www.funtrivia.com/submitquiz.cfm?quiz=35186 - I got a 5 of 10.) 

But having spent decades addressing civic issues here in New York City, it's quite clear that the local communication and administrative benefits offered by a thoughtfully developed DNS far outweigh contention tension. However, in most instances cities remain unaware of the DNS' utility beyond tourism and are not aware of its potential in developments like the Internet of Things, the semantic web, and using the DNS to reduce government redundancies as a force for regional consolidation (I'm advocating for reserving Hoboken.nyc).  

Olivier, as you point out, contention is a difficult issue, but let's find a way to bring the opportunities to light and weight the options in a public forum. Moving cities to a place where they recognize their common interest in developing the DNS is the City-TLD Workshop's goal, and the Vilnius IGF provides the opportunity to begin a long overdue multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. I hope to see you there.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Thomas Lowenhaupt 
  Cc: Roland Perry 
  Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 4:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact, Best Practices, Governance


  Hello Thomas,

  On 11/04/2010 09:37, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote : 
    Roland,

    Here's something I wrote a while ago that sought to put the Net (and ICANN) into an historic perspective with regard to cities. 
      Imagine that in 1983 Vint Cerf had visited a global city like New York, climbed the steps to City Hall and said to Mayor Koch that he and Jon Postel had begun thinking about an Internet enhancement that would make it easier to find the cities digital resources. That they were thinking of calling it the Domain Name System (DNS) and using names such as .com, .org and .edu. 

      And imagine Vint explaining his vision about this new technology's prospect for addressing the multiplicity of city needs; concluding with a plea that the mayor gather the world's smartest minds in New York City, help detail a desired DNS's feature-set and in the process develop a model that other cities might follow.

      But as we all know, no one knocked on that City Hall door and the DNS was created without considering its impact on cities. And when it escaped from the lab, the technology spread like a virus and changed the world for better and for worse. 

      Remarkably, the DNS opportunity is again at hand. ICANN will deliver on its key mission in 2010 and we'll soon see cities sporting new TLDs such as .nyc, .berlin, and .paris.
    Let me note that this was not written with the intent of criticizing these Internet pioneers, merely to highlight an area where, with omnipotent 20/20 hindsight, one might observe Net imperfections needing attention.

    Roland, with all due respect, I've never heard ICANN dealing with any of the issues I've proposed for the IGF Workshop. Yes, they have encouraged the development of "Perfect Sunrise" guidelines that warrant consideration, and they uncovered that there's a Paris in France as well as Texas. And to its credit, ICANN has agreed that cities should have access to TLDs. But city-TLD governance, best practices, and a primer for city-TLDs - it's just not in their scope. ICANN's concern is commerce not cities. City-TLDs are (IMHO) perfect for an IGF workshop.




  I agree with you although I wonder whether you wish to open such a can of worms. Your aim appears to be to have an informational session about city TLDs - perhaps working with others to write a set of best practices?
  You'll then have to answer questions of the type:
  If there is a Paris in France and a Paris in US, why don't they use paris.fr and paris.tx.us ?
  Admittedly, how does .nyc relate to the already existing .nyc.ny.us ?
  Roland's questions will also come up.

  Are you ready to have a potentially heated session on this?

  BTW, I'm completely neutral on the matter these days. If some organisations wish to try their hand at new gTLDs, let them go ahead. If I was to attend, I'd probably enjoy listening to a good debate.

  Kind regards,

  Olivier


-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/c9a7cd20/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Apr 11 14:20:08 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact,
In-Reply-To: <4BC1856D.9050301@gih.com>
Message-ID: <919055.60513.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I like this point.  I would volunteer to be Governor and work for free --- Just that;;; Everyone would have to agree to do nothing. ;-)
 
Thomas' idea has merit. And in keeping with this genuine warning, I would suggest that as long as he does not paint himself into a preconceived notion of what should be/or that he wants, the result could be quite constructive.  Whereas Olivier sees the multiple cities with same name an obstacle I see it as an opportunity to share the name /ala sister cities/ need it be competitive?  Why not corraborative and trust and understanding and culture sharing.
 
If we can step back and view the Internet as a grand communication device, then we need not surrender to marketers and capitalists, but rather embrace commonality and the higher level of understanding.  If I can transmit my poetry, music and fustrations and problems in a more efficient manner why should that be a bad thing?


--- On Sun, 4/11/10, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:


I agree with you although I wonder whether you wish to open such a can of worms. Your aim appears to be to have an informational session about city TLDs - perhaps working with others to write a set of best practices?
You'll then have to answer questions of the type:
If there is a Paris in France and a Paris in US, why don't they use paris.fr and paris.tx.us ?
Admittedly, how does .nyc relate to the already existing .nyc.ny.us ?
Roland's questions will also come up.

Are you ready to have a potentially heated session on this?

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/7d9e8b4f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From toml at communisphere.com  Sun Apr 11 14:45:01 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:45:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs:
 Impact, Best Practices, Governance
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <81464D22-914D-4C36-B4B6-B41BD340D468@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <06d201cad9a7$194ca660$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>

Jeremy,

You said:
  It would be a worthwhile workshop given the right panelists.  But are you looking for the IGC to put its name to this, or is it a workshop that you would organise, on which you are just seeking comments?
My hope is that the IGF will put its name on this. In the past I've failed to generate much interest here on city-TLDs, but would appreciate any and all levels of contributions to the proposal. And that extends to locating the "right panelists." In my early search in this regard my ideal candidate informed me that her first day of class is September 14, and that she is therefore not available. I hope this is not a global problem for participants from academia. 

I'm a bit unsure of the thrust of your closing paragraph, so will provide two answers. I support the 3 workshop proposals as recently posted, and we would be honored to have our organization listed as a sponsor. As to the future of our proposal: I was encouraged to pursue it in correspondence that resulted from my recent attendance at Under-Secretary-General Sha's IGF briefing at the U.N. So if it's not supported here, I would explore other channels for its submission. But I would be delighted to work with IGF to more fully develop and present this workshop proposal, and I would be deeply honored if we were to be one of many IGC organizations supporting it.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeremy Malcolm 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Thomas Lowenhaupt 
  Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact, Best Practices, Governance


  On 11/04/2010, at 11:28 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:


    Having spent a decade working toward the time when TLDs would become available to cities, and with the time of their arrival (possibly) at hand, little guidance has been made available to those interested in developing TLDs that serve the interest of city residents and organizations. I'd like to draw on the wisdom of the list in formulating a proposal on city-TLD best practices and governance for the IGF's Vilnius Conference. I think the recent McTim thread "privatizing cc TLDs" primed the discussion on this issue.

    Below is a draft of an IGF proposal for Vilnius. Comments appreciated.


  It would be a worthwhile workshop given the right panelists.  But are you looking for the IGC to put its name to this, or is it a workshop that you would organise, on which you are just seeking comments?


  Excluding this one, we have three on the table:


  1. Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
  2. Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
  3. Transnational enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy


  Unless there are real objections, I think we should put them all forward now even though they are not fully-formed, so that we can leave our options open.  In all likelihood not all three will be accepted, and/or we will be asked to merge them with other workshops.  For this reason it is not worth agonising over the wording or the composition of the panels yet.


  Please let me know if you object to this course of action - and also if you want to list your organisation as a co-organiser.

  -- 
  Jeremy Malcolm
  Project Coordinator
  Consumers International
  Kuala Lumpur 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

  CI is 50
  Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
  Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
  http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

  Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/40b8a0dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From toml at communisphere.com  Sun Apr 11 14:52:05 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:52:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] CORRECTED Workshop Proposal for Vilnius -
 City-TLDs: Impact, Best Practices, Governance
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <81464D22-914D-4C36-B4B6-B41BD340D468@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <070301cad9a8$155f7130$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>

CORRECTION - In my last paragraph the IGF should have been IGC. I've corrected it in the below.

Jeremy,

You said:
  It would be a worthwhile workshop given the right panelists.  But are you looking for the IGC to put its name to this, or is it a workshop that you would organise, on which you are just seeking comments?
My hope is that the IGF will put its name on this. In the past I've failed to generate much interest here on city-TLDs, but would appreciate any and all levels of contributions to the proposal. And that extends to locating the "right panelists." In my early search in this regard my ideal candidate informed me that her first day of class is September 14, and that she is therefore not available. I hope this is not a global problem for participants from academia. 

I'm a bit unsure of the thrust of your closing paragraph, so will provide two answers. I support the 3 workshop proposals as recently posted, and we would be honored to have our organization listed as a sponsor. As to the future of our proposal: I was encouraged to pursue it in correspondence that resulted from my recent attendance at Under-Secretary-General Sha's IGF briefing at the U.N. So if it's not supported here, I would explore other channels for its submission. But I would be delighted to work with IGC to more fully develop and present this workshop proposal, and I would be deeply honored if we were to be one of many IGC organizations supporting it.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeremy Malcolm 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Thomas Lowenhaupt 
  Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact, Best Practices, Governance


  On 11/04/2010, at 11:28 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:


    Having spent a decade working toward the time when TLDs would become available to cities, and with the time of their arrival (possibly) at hand, little guidance has been made available to those interested in developing TLDs that serve the interest of city residents and organizations. I'd like to draw on the wisdom of the list in formulating a proposal on city-TLD best practices and governance for the IGF's Vilnius Conference. I think the recent McTim thread "privatizing cc TLDs" primed the discussion on this issue.

    Below is a draft of an IGF proposal for Vilnius. Comments appreciated.


  It would be a worthwhile workshop given the right panelists.  But are you looking for the IGC to put its name to this, or is it a workshop that you would organise, on which you are just seeking comments?


  Excluding this one, we have three on the table:


  1. Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
  2. Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
  3. Transnational enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy


  Unless there are real objections, I think we should put them all forward now even though they are not fully-formed, so that we can leave our options open.  In all likelihood not all three will be accepted, and/or we will be asked to merge them with other workshops.  For this reason it is not worth agonising over the wording or the composition of the panels yet.


  Please let me know if you object to this course of action - and also if you want to list your organisation as a co-organiser.

  -- 
  Jeremy Malcolm
  Project Coordinator
  Consumers International
  Kuala Lumpur 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

  CI is 50
  Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
  Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
  http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

  Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/c9429008/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Sun Apr 11 16:01:04 2010
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:01:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] To the other side of the digital divide - ipad
In-Reply-To: <w2jad14556f1004061451k824296bcgf49495af2cefb32c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s2k701af9f71004060739l281689dfh61f5bda8dbff8754@mail.gmail.com> 
	<w2jad14556f1004061451k824296bcgf49495af2cefb32c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g2x808a83f61004111301y6c3af4fl8027e3eb6c8a60d9@mail.gmail.com>

Will an iPad blend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Charity Gamboa <charityg at diplomacy.edu>wrote:

> Hi Fouad,
>
> It was in the news here how some kids bought an ipad, then smashed it using
> a baseball bat and posted it in YouTube. They just wasted 500 bucks so they
> can post it in Youtube.  I don't think you want that kind of review though
> but it was in the 7:00 PM news last night (US Central time). I showed it to
> my class and they all reacted: "What did they do that for???" Here is the
> link if you are interested:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGUppxoJUVg
>
> Regards,
> Charity
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Has anyone bought or tried an ipad?
>>
>> What are your feelings about it and what solutions or backdrops do you
>> find in it?
>>
>> We can only read news online about it here in Pakistan or watch a few
>> product review videos.
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100411/d2a5001b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From krischenowski at dotberlin.de  Mon Apr 12 02:03:51 2010
From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:03:51 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] CORRECTED Workshop Proposal for Vilnius -
 City-TLDs: Impact, Best Practices, Governance
In-Reply-To: <070301cad9a8$155f7130$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
References: <055c01cad927$13225710$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <81464D22-914D-4C36-B4B6-B41BD340D468@ciroap.org> <070301cad9a8$155f7130$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
Message-ID: <005901cada05$ef11c010$cd354030$@de>

Hi Tom,

 

I'm following your approach for an IGF workshop. Is there any place for the
.berliners in that?

 

Best wishes from Berlin

 

Dirk

 

Von: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. April 2010 20:52
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Betreff: Re: [governance] CORRECTED Workshop Proposal for Vilnius -
City-TLDs: Impact, Best Practices, Governance

 

CORRECTION - In my last paragraph the IGF should have been IGC. I've
corrected it in the below.

 

Jeremy,

 

You said:

It would be a worthwhile workshop given the right panelists.  But are you
looking for the IGC to put its name to this, or is it a workshop that you
would organise, on which you are just seeking comments?

My hope is that the IGF will put its name on this. In the past I've failed
to generate much interest here on city-TLDs, but would appreciate any and
all levels of contributions to the proposal. And that extends to locating
the "right panelists." In my early search in this regard my ideal candidate
informed me that her first day of class is September 14, and that she is
therefore not available. I hope this is not a global problem for
participants from academia. 

 

I'm a bit unsure of the thrust of your closing paragraph, so will provide
two answers. I support the 3 workshop proposals as recently posted, and we
would be honored to have our organization listed as a sponsor. As to the
future of our proposal: I was encouraged to pursue it in correspondence that
resulted from my recent attendance at Under-Secretary-General Sha's IGF
briefing at the U.N. So if it's not supported here, I would explore other
channels for its submission. But I would be delighted to work with IGC to
more fully develop and present this workshop proposal, and I would be deeply
honored if we were to be one of many IGC organizations supporting it.

 

Best,

 

Tom Lowenhaupt

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>  

To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Thomas <mailto:toml at communisphere.com>
Lowenhaupt 

Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:48 AM

Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop Proposal for Vilnius - City-TLDs: Impact,
Best Practices, Governance

 

On 11/04/2010, at 11:28 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:





Having spent a decade working toward the time when TLDs would become
available to cities, and with the time of their arrival (possibly) at hand,
little guidance has been made available to those interested in developing
TLDs that serve the interest of city residents and organizations. I'd like
to draw on the wisdom of the list in formulating a proposal on city-TLD best
practices and governance for the IGF's Vilnius Conference. I think the
recent McTim thread "privatizing cc TLDs" primed the discussion on this
issue.

 

Below is a draft of an IGF proposal for Vilnius. Comments appreciated.

 

It would be a worthwhile workshop given the right panelists.  But are you
looking for the IGC to put its name to this, or is it a workshop that you
would organise, on which you are just seeking comments?

 

Excluding this one, we have three on the table:

 

1. Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the
Developing World

2. Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking
forward to WSIS 2015

3. Transnational enforcement of a new information order - Issues of rights
and democracy

 

Unless there are real objections, I think we should put them all forward now
even though they are not fully-formed, so that we can leave our options
open.  In all likelihood not all three will be accepted, and/or we will be
asked to merge them with other workshops.  For this reason it is not worth
agonising over the wording or the composition of the panels yet.

 

Please let me know if you object to this course of action - and also if you
want to list your organisation as a co-organiser.

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50

Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
2010.

Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
rights around the world. 
 <http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&
int1stParentNodeID=89765> email confidentiality notice. Don't print this
email unless necessary.

 

  _____  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/8b664f1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Mon Apr 12 03:50:36 2010
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:50:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: US regulatory failure? Blame the US court of
 appeals DC circuit
Message-ID: <4BC2D0CC.7080602@gmail.com>

[While views may differ, this is an interesting take from the Washington 
Post]

Regulatory failure? Blame the D.C. Circuit. By Steven Pearlstein Friday, 
April 9, 2010; A14

There's a lot of talk these days about how Washington has become 
dysfunctional. While most of the focus has been on Congress, the 
inability to perform even basic functions also extends to the agencies 
that are charged with protecting workers, consumers and investors. 
Unfortunately, it often takes a global financial crisis or a deadly coal 
mine explosion to remind us of the serious consequences of regulatory 
failure.

Much of the blame belongs with regulators who have been captured by the 
industries they are meant to oversee or have been swept up in the 
general political drift toward deregulation. But, as we were reminded by 
a case this week involving the Federal Communications Commission, 
another big culprit is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit, which over the past decade has intimidated, undermined 
and demoralized the regulatory apparatus.

Many of the D.C. Circuit judges have long since stopped pretending to 
defer to the factual determinations and policy judgments of duly 
appointed regulators, as the law requires. Deference has now given way 
to skepticism, hostility and contempt that can easily be read between 
the lines of overly legalistic opinions that routinely ignore the plain 
language of statute and the clear intent of Congress. It's gotten so bad 
that top regulators told me privately this week that they routinely put 
aside consideration of needed new initiatives because they assume they 
will be foiled by the hostile appeals court.

Driving the court's regulatory bias are judges such as Brett Kavanaugh, 
Laurence Silberman and Stephen Williams, Republican appointees who bring 
to the bench an abiding skepticism about the value of bureaucratic 
rulemaking. Their cramped view is that regulators can take only those 
actions specifically and explicitly authorized by statutes, ignoring the 
fact that many laws are so old that they never could have anticipated 
the dramatic changes in technology and the economy.

Even the court's more liberal members betray an attitude that regulators 
are a well-meaning but overzealous bunch who, like teenagers, need 
constant adult supervision from judges who are smarter and wiser. Their 
decisions frequently scold agencies for failing to dot their i's and 
cross their t's in justifying new regulations, sending the regulators 
back to try again and again.

It was one of those liberal members, David Tatel, who wrote this week's 
opinion finding that the FCC has no business regulating Internet 
providers. The case was brought by Comcast, which had been slapped on 
the wrist by the FCC for managing its Internet service in a way that 
slowed bandwidth-hogging activities such as file-sharing when its 
network became congested. Comcast appealed, knowing that the agency's 
action was but the first step toward a policy of "net neutrality" that 
could prevent broadband providers from one day favoring their own 
content over that of their competitors.

A long line of Supreme Court cases essentially made it possible for the 
FCC to broaden the scope of its activity as communication technology 
evolved from radios and copper-wire telephones. These cases often relied 
on the commission's broad mandate to "expand service" at "reasonable 
charges" with "fair and efficient networks." More recently, the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 declared Congress's desire "to promote 
the continued development of the Internet" and "encourage the 
development of technologies which maximize user control over what 
information is received."

But this did not impress Tatel, who simply dismissed it as mere 
"congressional statements of policy" and criticized the agency for 
failing to find specific statutory authorization for interfering in this 
way in Comcast's business. The irony of his decision is that it has now 
undermined the FCC's "light touch" approach to Internet regulation, 
begun under the Bush administration, and will probably force the agency 
to declare broadband providers to be "common carriers," triggering far 
more intrusive rulemaking. That, in turn, will surely lead to a another 
decade-long legal war as the industry challenges each rule at the court 
of appeals.

That is just what happened in the 1990s, when the FCC -- on the 
instruction of Congress -- moved to force the old local Bell telephone 
monopolies to share their lines with upstart competitors. Time and 
again, the FCC formulated rules to govern how that access would be 
provided and how much the upstarts would pay for the "unbundled 
elements," and time and again, the D.C. Circuit struck down the ruling. 
*The fight went on so long that, by the time the court was finally 
satisfied, virtually all the upstart carriers had been driven out of 
business, the technology had moved on, and the whole issue was moot. *

But it's not just the FCC.

Last month, the court of appeals gave its trademark treatment to the 
Food and Drug Administration, which had the temerity to try to meet 
Congress's clearly stated desire to speed the introduction of generic 
drugs into the market once the original patents expire.

And last year, Judge Williams went through 24 pages of hair-splitting 
logic to explain why the Federal Trade Commission was out of bounds when 
it tried to discipline a tech company for enhancing its monopoly in a 
certain chipmaking process by deceiving an industry standard-setting 
body.* According to Williams, the fact that its deceit "merely" enabled 
a monopolist to charge higher prices doesn't constitute illegal 
anti-competitive behavior. *

*Surely no decisions were more ludicrous, or did more to undercut 
sensible regulation, than a pair of rulings in 2005 and 2006* in which 
the D.C. Circuit overturned a rule promulgated by the Securities and 
Exchange Commission requiring that 75 percent of the directors of a 
mutual fund be independent of the company chosen to manage the fund's 
investments. It's hard to imagine that Congress didn't mean to protect 
small investors from self-dealing by mutual fund companies when it wrote 
the Investment Company Act of 1940. But Judge Judith Rogers overturned 
the rule anyway after finding flaws in the agency's estimate of how much 
the rule would cost each mutual fund to implement -- by any estimate, a 
trifling sum compared with the tens of millions of dollars managed by 
even the smallest mutual funds.

None of these is the sort of case that makes big headlines or causes the 
public to rise up in outrage, but they are the means by which a new 
breed of judicial activist is quietly undermining the reach and the 
effectiveness of government. It's all well and good for Congress to go 
through the process of hammering out new laws on financial regulation or 
mine safety. But thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit, there's a good chance they'll never be implemented. © 
2010 The Washington Post Company

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/8b0eb7b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 12 04:04:56 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 01:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] To the other side of the digital divide - ipad
In-Reply-To: <g2x808a83f61004111301y6c3af4fl8027e3eb6c8a60d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s2k701af9f71004060739l281689dfh61f5bda8dbff8754@mail.gmail.com>  <w2jad14556f1004061451k824296bcgf49495af2cefb32c@mail.gmail.com> <g2x808a83f61004111301y6c3af4fl8027e3eb6c8a60d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <656189.54065.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Tracy, How are you?
 
Reagrding iPAD, I think that breaking or blending a product in nothing more than showing criticism for negative marketing campaign, when other does not have the capability to compete the product. However, if all PDAs and handy computers (regardless of brand name) are being broken or blended the we can start thinking that people of the world are against the new innovation and development. 
 
However, I have a question which is confusing me, that what IGF or IGC can influence & effect onto to Developer or Resellers policy if they restrict selling their brands, special models or special version of application software or hardware to not to sell or a specific region of the world. For example, when we need to buy new CISCO ASA (Applied Security Appliances), there was a list of multiple countries that this product will not be sold to or ship to these countries (list includes China, Afghanistan or Iran). What IGF and IGC has dialogue forum and convincing power to ask them to change their policies?
 
Thanks
 
Imran Ahmed Shah

________________________________
From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Charity Gamboa <charityg at diplomacy.edu>
Cc: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 April, 2010 1:01:04
Subject: Re: [governance] To the other side of the digital divide - ipad


Will an iPad blend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Charity Gamboa <charityg at diplomacy.edu> wrote:

Hi Fouad,
>
>It was in the news here how some kids bought an ipad, then smashed it using a baseball bat and posted it in YouTube. They just wasted 500 bucks so they can post it in Youtube.  I don't think you want that kind of review though but it was in the 7:00 PM news last night (US Central time). I showed it to my class and they all reacted: "What did they do that for???" Here is the link if you are interested:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGUppxoJUVg
>
>Regards,
>Charity
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>>
>>Has anyone bought or tried an ipad?
>>
>>What are your feelings about it and what solutions or backdrops do you
>>find in it?
>>
>>We can only read news online about it here in Pakistan or watch a few
>>product review videos.
>>
>>--
>>Regards.
>>--------------------------
>>Fouad Bajwa 
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/cf8042d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com  Mon Apr 12 07:34:47 2010
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:34:47 -0300
Subject: [governance] Important moment for Internet regulation in Brazil
In-Reply-To: <z2if7e605ab1004090704lca2c7f02pc25d5724f729fd10@mail.gmail.com>
References: <z2if7e605ab1004090704lca2c7f02pc25d5724f729fd10@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <i2u4ca4162f1004120434ta1bf93ebx646f7b448b74e18b@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations for all of you, dear Marilia and all brazilians, you are
doing a great job!
Best,
Roxana



2010/4/9 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> Dear members of the list,
>
> As you may have heard, Brazil is going through a very special (and unique)
> phase of the regulation of Internet in the country. In the end of 2009, a
> process of public consultation to collaboratively elaborate a *civil**-*rights
> based regulatory *framework* for *internet* in Brazil has been put forth
> by the Ministry of Justice (MJ), with the support of the Center for
> Technology and Society (CTS) of the Getulio Vargas Foundation.
>
> This collaborative process substitutes very dangerous attempts to regulate
> the Internet from a criminal standpoint . The more widely known bill was
> called law Azeredo, which disregarded privacy concerns and criminalized
> socially accepted behaviors. The result would be massive criminalization of
> the population and a draconian protection of copyright.
>
> A platform has been created specially for people to comment of the proposal
> of civil framework. On the first phase of the consultation people had to
> comment on a text about general principles and issues. Those comments were
> read and systematized by MJ and CTS and have based the creation of a draft
> bill. This bill has been made available online yesterday. It is under a
> second phase of public consultation, which will last for 45 days. The
> suggestions will be again systematized and incorporated to the bill, which
> will then be present to our Congress for discussion.
>
> Some points of this process need to be highlighted:
>
> 1-      This is a unique process of public consultation. There has never
> been such a wide and open possibility for society to be heard about a new
> regulation. Participation on the first phase came from civil society,
> business sector and governments organizations.
>
> 2-       This is a pilot-experiment, that can be used in the future to
> discuss other law proposals. In this sense, Brazil is making a huge step
> towards the improvement of e-participation and e-democracy.
>
> 3-      The battle is just beginning. There is a long way until the bill
> is approved. But we would not have come this far without a vibrant civil
> society movement who has said “no” to laws like “Azeredo law” and has made
> protests and campaigns throughout the country, both online and offline.
>
> I would like to share with you the link to the platform. Although the text
> of the bill is only in Portuguese, we are already working on its translation
> in order to give it publicity outside Brazil.
>
> http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/
>
> This is a very important moment for the Brazilian Internet users and I
> would like to share the good news with you.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marília
> --
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/366efaa5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From babatope at gmail.com  Mon Apr 12 11:06:52 2010
From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:06:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] Important moment for Internet regulation in Brazil
In-Reply-To: <i2u4ca4162f1004120434ta1bf93ebx646f7b448b74e18b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <z2if7e605ab1004090704lca2c7f02pc25d5724f729fd10@mail.gmail.com>
	 <i2u4ca4162f1004120434ta1bf93ebx646f7b448b74e18b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <y2rcea89bdf1004120806v6b8e7abcof3e8b83ddb266536@mail.gmail.com>

Wonderful! Its exciting to read of this and look forward to the English
version.

Will document lessons learnt for possible use here in Nigeria.

Best,



On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Roxana Goldstein <
goldstein.roxana at gmail.com> wrote:

> Congratulations for all of you, dear Marilia and all brazilians, you are
> doing a great job!
> Best,
> Roxana
>
>
>
> 2010/4/9 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear members of the list,
>>
>> As you may have heard, Brazil is going through a very special (and unique)
>> phase of the regulation of Internet in the country. In the end of 2009, a
>> process of public consultation to collaboratively elaborate a *civil**-*rights
>> based regulatory *framework* for *internet* in Brazil has been put forth
>> by the Ministry of Justice (MJ), with the support of the Center for
>> Technology and Society (CTS) of the Getulio Vargas Foundation.
>>
>> This collaborative process substitutes very dangerous attempts to regulate
>> the Internet from a criminal standpoint . The more widely known bill was
>> called law Azeredo, which disregarded privacy concerns and criminalized
>> socially accepted behaviors. The result would be massive criminalization of
>> the population and a draconian protection of copyright.
>>
>> A platform has been created specially for people to comment of the
>> proposal of civil framework. On the first phase of the consultation people
>> had to comment on a text about general principles and issues. Those comments
>> were read and systematized by MJ and CTS and have based the creation of a
>> draft bill. This bill has been made available online yesterday. It is under
>> a second phase of public consultation, which will last for 45 days. The
>> suggestions will be again systematized and incorporated to the bill, which
>> will then be present to our Congress for discussion.
>>
>> Some points of this process need to be highlighted:
>>
>> 1-      This is a unique process of public consultation. There has never
>> been such a wide and open possibility for society to be heard about a new
>> regulation. Participation on the first phase came from civil society,
>> business sector and governments organizations.
>>
>> 2-       This is a pilot-experiment, that can be used in the future to
>> discuss other law proposals. In this sense, Brazil is making a huge step
>> towards the improvement of e-participation and e-democracy.
>>
>> 3-      The battle is just beginning. There is a long way until the bill
>> is approved. But we would not have come this far without a vibrant civil
>> society movement who has said “no” to laws like “Azeredo law” and has made
>> protests and campaigns throughout the country, both online and offline.
>>
>> I would like to share with you the link to the platform. Although the text
>> of the bill is only in Portuguese, we are already working on its translation
>> in order to give it publicity outside Brazil.
>>
>> http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/
>>
>> This is a very important moment for the Brazilian Internet users and I
>> would like to share the good news with you.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Marília
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/fc59b535/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Apr 12 15:43:02 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:43:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's
In-Reply-To: <1270029058.3121.777.camel@anriette-laptop>
References: <042601cad09d$34f932b0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1270029058.3121.777.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <7BE9BFAF-42FB-4F39-9477-679D522C2AEA@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

I just noticed the CSTD agenda at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010d1_en.pdf.  On Tuesday 18 May it includes 

10 am	Introduction and discussion of the report of the Secretary General on enhanced cooperation.  (This is the one held back last year due to issues discussed here previously.)

3pm		Discussion on the outcome of the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh

There is of course no mention of the SG's report on continuation, but one imagines that with some governments asking for a CSTD discussion it will happen, probably that afternoon.  

The 18th should be an interesting day, it'd be useful for IGC people to attend if able.

Cheers,

Bill


On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Thanks very much for these notes, Thomas.
> 
> I am fairly confident that the CSTD bureau will ask for the SG's report.
> And we should encourage them to.
> 
> Who is plannning to attend, or participate remotely in the CSTD this
> year?
> 
> APC plans to be there.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:21 +0200, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Dear Thomas
>> 
>> thanks very very much. 
>> 
>> wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com]
>> Gesendet: Mi 31.03.2010 08:41
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were
>> stripped from my earlier version.
>> 
>> Internet Governance - IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN
>> March 30, 2010
>> 
>> The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN
>> Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and
>> Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided.
>> 
>> Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet
>> Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of
>> Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion
>> arising from his former position as China's Ambassador to the U.N., and the
>> controversies about China's oversight of that nation's Internet resources,
>> he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real
>> interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don't
>> care."
>> 
>> He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations.
>> I'll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the
>> history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold."
>> After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt,
>> Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding
>> statements by Mr. Sha.
>> 
>>> From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] -
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> How The Review Process Will Unfold
>> 
>> When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which
>> time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The
>> Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its
>> merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More
>> precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN
>> Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the
>> Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of
>> its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>> regard." Those five years have now come to an end.
>> 
>> The formal consultations were initiated by an online process...
>> 
>> A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for
>> public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire.
>> Contributions were received from Governments... Comments were also received
>> from a number of individuals.
>> 
>> In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants
>> during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the
>> consultation 47 speakers...
>> 
>> Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due
>> to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were
>> submitted after the consultations.
>> 
>> The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period
>> from July to December 2009 was thus 118.
>> 
>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and
>> describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet
>> governance. They are:
>> 
>> 1. Governments;
>> 
>> 2. The private sector;
>> 
>> 3. Civic society;
>> 
>> 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic
>> and technical communities within those stakeholder groups...
>> 
>> Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles
>> adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to
>> building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information
>> Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase,
>> reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform
>> for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard.
>> 
>> What stakeholders have said
>> 
>> [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.]
>> 
>> Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General
>> 
>> It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the
>> Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions
>> expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations.
>> 
>> Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to
>> the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of
>> the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for
>> development.
>> 
>> The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the
>> IGF.
>> 
>> Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the
>> Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for
>> consideration.
>> 
>> As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were
>> decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request
>> that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any
>> subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the
>> Secretary-General to the CSTD.
>> 
>> In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early
>> this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation
>> of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD.
>> 
>> While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the
>> broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the
>> implementation of WSIS.
>> 
>> Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of
>> ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of
>> the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General
>> Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into
>> the UN's 6 languages.]
>> 
>> The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the
>> Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a
>> decision by Member States.
>> 
>> Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations
>> of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the
>> Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21
>> May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."]
>> 
>> However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the
>> documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in
>> unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will
>> not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go
>> through editing, translation and production processes.
>> 
>> So the issue before us is two-fold - a decision by member states as to
>> whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted
>> first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the
>> recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official
>> languages.
>> 
>> At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share
>> whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if
>> invited.
>> 
>> Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about
>> the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation...
>> 
>> Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities.
>> 
>> Yemen - presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See
>> http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points,
>> which I paraphrase:
>> 
>> 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly
>> regardless of other fora that might also discuss it.
>> 
>> 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years.
>> 
>> 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant
>> public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet
>> resources..."
>> 
>> 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental
>> bodies.
>> 
>> 5. LDC's should be more involved than in the past.
>> 
>> 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so
>> as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements,
>> mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to
>> work under the auspices of the UN.
>> 
>> EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The
>> CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the
>> preliminary note's "could" be circulated status be changed to "will."
>> 
>> Egypt - They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of
>> IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support
>> for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed.
>> 
>> Sri Lanka - Support continuation of IGF.
>> 
>> Canada - Supports IGF continuation.
>> 
>> U.S. - Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs.
>> Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has
>> been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes
>> can be circulated prior to CSTD.
>> 
>> U.K. - 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated
>> prior to CSTD.
>> 
>> Mr. Sha Comment - As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an
>> English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a
>> unanimous call for this.
>> 
>> France - Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting
>> but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.]
>> 
>> Norway - Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process
>> was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He
>> referred to a SG progress report in 2008.
>> 
>> Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly:
>> 
>> 193 members of General Assembly
>> 
>> 54 members of ECOSOC
>> 
>> 43 members of CSTD.
>> 
>> ICC (International Chamber of Commerce - Supports continuation of IGF.
>> 
>> Mr. Sha - CSTD can be helpful but it can't supplant the work of the General
>> Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which
>> that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also
>> needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One
>> objection would probably stop him from releasing it.
>> 
>> End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> -- 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

***********************************************************
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Mon Apr 12 18:51:05 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:51:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] mudslides
In-Reply-To: <F8E8016F-2349-4856-8EC8-0CA046A8D83D@acm.org>
References: <F8E8016F-2349-4856-8EC8-0CA046A8D83D@acm.org>
Message-ID: <002201cada92$a4b97b60$ee2c7220$@com.br>

 Thanks Avri. As always the poors are the victims. A lot of stupid issues
and the result is a tragedy. We need to learn to deal with the rain - as
cold countries learned how to deal with snow. Rains are huge some time here.

As I told you during  that dinner here attached the "periquitos" in my
balcony.

 Kisses

 

cid:image002.jpg at 01C93E96.B7BF8BD0

Vanda Scartezini

NEXTi_v1.jpg

an ICANN ALS

tel: + 55 11 3266.6253

mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464

www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:06 AM
To: IGC
Subject: [governance] mudslides

 

hi,

 

best wishes for anyone who may have anyone in the way of mudslides.  i
expect/hope that given the size and the where and the luck of statistics,
none of this list's Brasilian members are in the mud's way, but best wishes
nonetheless.

 

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

 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/e9f33fd5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/e9f33fd5/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1570 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/e9f33fd5/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_0692.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 105293 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100412/e9f33fd5/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Apr 13 03:13:40 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:13:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
 Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
In-Reply-To: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> Description:
> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
> 
> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact over the past 12 months since presented.
> 
> Format:
> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over the following year.

I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100413/1d8cb1c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Apr 13 03:56:29 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:56:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 2: Successes and failures of
 Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
In-Reply-To: <3D000EA1-95F9-41ED-AC81-E5E414EC4458@ciroap.org>
References: <3D000EA1-95F9-41ED-AC81-E5E414EC4458@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C65260F3-1129-4780-9512-6AF782AFF98F@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> Description:
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  

Could someone provide some examples to clarify the focus here?  What institutional and procedural approaches to which problems of Internet governance would we be talking about?  Only actually existing or also proposed?  Is the idea to consider the relative merits of, for example, intergovernmental vs. MS vs. private sector arrangements?  If so, a comparative assessment would probably be better if one could identify issue spaces to which the different models were applied, e.g. intergovernmental vs PS approaches to privacy rules, rather than comparing apples and oranges.

> In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.

Would this be the criteria for making judgements as to which is a success and which is a failure?  In which case everything that's not MS would be deemed a failure? (!) Or  would there be some other criteria?  If so, could we have an illustration or two of successes and failures and the basis for the judgement?
> 
> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today,

Is there any reason to believe they would not be?

> are the WSIS process criteria due for revision,

Clearer and more precise, operational language on transparency, democratic, full involvement, etc would certainly be useful, and one would think a strong workshop could be organized on these and their application across cases.

> and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?

Don't understand what this is getting at, even if we replaced "will" with "did."

Best,

Bill

> 
> Format:
> The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between panelists and the floor.
> 
> — 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100413/54df4b91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Apr 13 04:34:25 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:34:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnationa?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?l_enforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=96_Issues_of_r?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ights_and_democracy?=
In-Reply-To: <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

Parminder could you help me to understand the desired focus?  To me, trans-border enforcement connotes a government or other actor based in one territorial unit unilaterally establishing/enforcing rules applicable in other units, i.e. extraterritoriality.  If memory serves this was the focus of the IGC workshop we were on in Hyderabad.  In contrast, ACTA and the UNESCO treaty (which will be hard to 'enforce') involve the negotiated harmonization of rules, with enforcement being an undertaking each government commits to within its jurisdiction.  These are rather different architectures, no?

If the driving interest here is unilateral/extraterritorial, I'd suggest picking cases in which that model's been followed and comparing, generalizing.  If instead it is the substantive policy problem of IPR, maybe it'd be interesting to frame this as a comparative assessment of different policy architectures for that?  After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way in multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and costs of building an architecture through unilateral imposition and bilateral FTAs...Just a suggestion.

Cheers,

Bill

PS: Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing.


On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Parminder wrote:

> Attempting a  quick first draft for the proposed workshop. 
> 
> Proposed workshop title : 'Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy'
> 
> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm or order. In this respect, many technical issues interact with institutional frameworks around information and knowledge - like IP, but also FoE, cultural rights etc - to develop a unique and unprecedented global system of information and knowledge flows and controls. Trans-border institutional mechanism become a key issue in this regards - and trans-border enforcement of IP laws is a strongly contested subject right now. The pluri-lateral treaty 'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act', currently being negotiated has been in the eye of the storm, both vis a vis local constituencies in the countries which are a part of the negotiation, and developing countries who fear that such treaties negotiated without their participation may become the default global institutional framework, including through bilateral FTAs . 
> 
> Apart from IP issues, trans-border enforcement on and through the Internet also has implications for FoE and cultural rights regimes (For instance the recent UNECSO treaty on cultural goods). 
> 
> The proposed workshop will address the above issues, specifically employing the lenses of rights (right to knowledge, FoE, cultural rights etc) and democracy (right to self determination and political participation). 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100413/f6ea46cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Apr 13 09:12:59 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:12:59 +0800
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
 Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
In-Reply-To: <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org> <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>

On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:

> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?

Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100413/ff9e82a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Apr 13 15:38:17 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:38:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

To defend the revolution (?) and back up Fouad, I would ask Bil and others to explain how they know there will not be revolutionary IG ideas dreamt up to help change the developing world, and discussed at the workshop. 

Maybe the paragraph description needs to be tweaked, but I would hate the IGC to abandon co-organizing the revolution just when it might be getting interesting : )

________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:12 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World

On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:

I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?

Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.

--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Apr 13 21:09:29 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:09:29 +0800
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 2: Successes and failures of
 Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015
In-Reply-To: <C65260F3-1129-4780-9512-6AF782AFF98F@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <3D000EA1-95F9-41ED-AC81-E5E414EC4458@ciroap.org> <C65260F3-1129-4780-9512-6AF782AFF98F@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4A5D1675-B605-4F9C-9927-FA159B3AB71E@ciroap.org>

On 13/04/2010, at 3:56 PM, William Drake wrote:

>> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.  
> 
> Could someone provide some examples to clarify the focus here?  What institutional and procedural approaches to which problems of Internet governance would we be talking about?  Only actually existing or also proposed?  Is the idea to consider the relative merits of, for example, intergovernmental vs. MS vs. private sector arrangements?

Existing past and present approaches, ranging from very informal decentralised arrangements for governance of Usenet, more hierarchical private approaches such as the RIRs and IETF, the evolving private management of the DNS (in the shadow of governments) through ICANN, multi-stakeholder experiments such as CGI.br, purely governmental such as the OECD... you can think of as many examples as I can.

> If so, a comparative assessment would probably be better if one could identify issue spaces to which the different models were applied, e.g. intergovernmental vs PS approaches to privacy rules, rather than comparing apples and oranges.

I agree with the desirability of not drawing too many close parallels across different governance domains, would think that we can drill down to that level once we have selected the panelists and begun to brainstorm with them about the exact content of the session.

>> In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.
> 
> Would this be the criteria for making judgements as to which is a success and which is a failure?  In which case everything that's not MS would be deemed a failure? (!) Or  would there be some other criteria?  If so, could we have an illustration or two of successes and failures and the basis for the judgement?

No that would be too simplistic.  I probably wouldn't be a panelist, so my opinions aren't worth anything, but I would say that there are privately-run ccTLD registries like SIDN, Nominet and (to a lesser extent) auDA that have largely been a success, whereas clear failures to date have been the ITU-led process around the ENUM standard, and the RIR-led migration to IPv6.

>> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have been made today,
> 
> Is there any reason to believe they would not be?

I'd have thought so... look back at Wolfgang's comments on the thread about the Secretary-General's report on the IGF and the CSTD.

>> are the WSIS process criteria due for revision,
> 
> Clearer and more precise, operational language on transparency, democratic, full involvement, etc would certainly be useful, and one would think a strong workshop could be organized on these and their application across cases.
> 
>> and how will the role of private actors differ between the two summits?
> 
> Don't understand what this is getting at, even if we replaced "will" with "did."


It means between WSIS 2003-2005 and WSIS 2015.  Maybe I can find a clearer way of expressing that.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100414/66e39ca9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 00:47:19 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:47:19 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <4BBB4947.8070800@cafonso.ca>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca> <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBB4947.8070800@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <r2gf65fb55e1004132147ra8f20004gd0c96a4ead80269@mail.gmail.com>

Carlos,

apologies, this languished in my drafts folder until now...

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> OK, McTim, let us compare, if you will.
>
> ICANN is a non-profit which is more than 80% funded by a gTLD vendor


and here I thought ICANN was largely funded by the .25 USD per domain
fee..silly me.  Thanks for setting me straight on this, I'll get right
on to Verisign and see if they want to donate to me, since they give
so freely to ICANN.

> which directly influences ICANN's gTLD policies -- in practice a
> brokerage house of the big gTLD business.

That's the perception among many.  However, I didn't see that at ICANN 37.

Most of the complexity of the
> current ICANN derives from being the central place where the different
> commercial interests of registries, registrars and other commercial
> interests try to leverage gTLD governance to suit each one's commercial
> aims. Efforts by non-commercial sectors to participate and acquire more
> leverage in the decision-making process are frequently thwarted or
> outrightly sabotaged by mechanisms embedded in the ICANN structure
> (including a frequently pro-business atitude of staff itself).
>
> CGI.br is a not a non-profit organization

but is it CS?

-- it is a pluralist
> commission created with the mandate of governing .br names and
> allocation of IP numbers within Brazil. CGI.br oversees the
> implementation of its policies through a non-profit organization
> (NIC.br) which guarantees that names and numbers are distributed as a
> non-profit operation, establishing the .br names as the identity of
> Brazil on the Internet and an asset of the commons. NIC.br manages two
> million .br domains, IP distribution,

Does NIC.br actually sub-allocate it's own allocations or just
evaluate LIR applications and pass them on to LACNIC? Can LIRs in BR
go to LACNIC directly or is that not allowed under Brazilian law?

and several research and support
> projects (such as CERT.br, the IXP network, the research center CETIC.br
> among others), and runs its own entire technical facilities, as well as
> being the operations center of LACNIC -- all this with less than 20% of
> the ICANN budget, and is completely self-sufficient, not depending on
> any commercial business to survive.

And where does the money come from if not from leasing Internet
resources to (mostly) commercial entities?

>
> There are CSs and there are CSs...

Whois to say which is which?

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 00:57:16 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:57:16 +0300
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 2: Successes and failures of 
In-Reply-To: <4A5D1675-B605-4F9C-9927-FA159B3AB71E@ciroap.org>
References: <3D000EA1-95F9-41ED-AC81-E5E414EC4458@ciroap.org> 
	<C65260F3-1129-4780-9512-6AF782AFF98F@graduateinstitute.ch> 
	<4A5D1675-B605-4F9C-9927-FA159B3AB71E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <t2mf65fb55e1004132157zde5f0e50l76a32ab59b3a45e8@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 13/04/2010, at 3:56 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural
> approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet governance
> over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various perspectives
> about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.
>
> Could someone provide some examples to clarify the focus here?
>  What institutional and procedural approaches to which problems of Internet
> governance would we be talking about?  Only actually existing or also
> proposed?  Is the idea to consider the relative merits of, for example,
> intergovernmental vs. MS vs. private sector arrangements?
>
> Existing past and present approaches, ranging from very informal
> decentralised arrangements for governance of Usenet, more hierarchical
> private approaches such as the RIRs and IETF, the evolving private
> management of the DNS (in the shadow of governments) through ICANN,
> multi-stakeholder experiments such as CGI.br, purely governmental such as
> the OECD... you can think of as many examples as I can.
>
> If so, a comparative assessment would probably be better if one could
> identify issue spaces to which the different models were applied, e.g.
> intergovernmental vs PS approaches to privacy rules, rather than comparing
> apples and oranges.
>
> I agree with the desirability of not drawing too many close parallels across
> different governance domains, would think that we can drill down to that
> level once we have selected the panelists and begun to brainstorm with them
> about the exact content of the session.
>
> In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria which
> recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
> society, and international organizations in Internet governance
> arrangements.
>
> Would this be the criteria for making judgements as to which is a success
> and which is a failure?  In which case everything that's not MS would be
> deemed a failure? (!) Or  would there be some other criteria?  If so, could
> we have an illustration or two of successes and failures and the basis for
> the judgement?
>
> No that would be too simplistic.  I probably wouldn't be a panelist, so my
> opinions aren't worth anything, but I would say that there are privately-run
> ccTLD registries like SIDN, Nominet and (to a lesser extent) auDA that have
> largely been a success, whereas clear failures to date have been the ITU-led
> process around the ENUM standard, and the RIR-led migration to IPv6.

I don't understand why either of these can be considered failures.

I've been involved in both processes and it is fairly trivial to get
either one. Just because users haven't adopted either one as much as
some would like doesn't mean they are "failures".

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 01:19:19 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:19:19 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701D5E09F91@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBAFCFC.3000805@itforchange.net> <j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701D5E09F91@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <i2rf65fb55e1004132219h77c342f5z3e8753c4dc2957a2@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Do you deny that the root of Internet numbering resources are a
>> natural monopoly?  How about names?  If it wasn't then I could have
>> itforchange.net, and there would be chaos in terms of who is who.
>
> I'll deny it. That's because I actually know what the term "natural monopoly" means.

Others have different defintions:
http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/naturalmonopoly.htm

Definition: A natural monopoly is a situation where for technical or
social reasons there cannot be more than one efficient provider of a
good. Public utilities are usually considered to be natural
monopolies.

>
> Like many techies with no background in political economy,

I have a degree in the social sciences.

> you are confusing the need for coordination and exclusive assignment with a monopoly in the supply of a service. They are distinct. And the distinction is significant.
>
> Natural monopoly theory asserts that a service supplier is a monopoly because it has the lowest marginal cost across the entire market, due to economies of scale and scope. It becomes immediately clear that a single entity (IANA) almost certainly does not have economies of scale and scope in the supply of registration services sufficient to make it the exclusive supplier of such services. If they did, there would be only one such entity, and you should be arguing for the abolition of all RIRs. Indeed, taking the logic even farther you should argue that there should be no LIRs, either. All assignments should come directly from IANA.


Like they did originally?  Like many (port numbers and protocol numbers) do now.

>
> Doesn't sound so good, does it?So obviously what you intend to say is that the root should be coordinated to ensure global compatibility of addressing

that too.

>- not that the root is a "natural monopoly."

Seems fairly "natural" to me, but what do I know, I'm just a "techie".

 And as we have learned from the liberalization of telecoms, there are
numerous ways to retain universal connectivity while breaking up
monopolies.
>
> These discussions would be a lot easier to have, and more productive, if the technical community was willing to listen to forms of expertise other than engineering and computer science.

Your experience as a member of the ARIN community belies 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jcancio at mityc.es  Wed Apr 14 07:03:41 2010
From: jcancio at mityc.es (Cancio Melia, Jorge)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:03:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] draft workshop proposal on
In-Reply-To: <i2rf65fb55e1004132219h77c342f5z3e8753c4dc2957a2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A69A6E96E@SRVC202.mityc.age>

Dear all



We are thinking about organising the following workshop:



Title: Public sector information online: democratic, social and economic potentials



Relevance:



Since the IGF in Hyderabad significant developments in this field: inter alia, OECD Recommendation adopted at Seoul. EU Declarations and EU-CEPAL joint Declaration of La Granja. Development of various open government initiatives, where public sector information online is a central element.



Description:



Open discussion on policy options regarding the opening of public sector information for re-use for commercial and non commercial purposes. Especial reference to its democratic, social and economic potential. Update on open government initiatives and "data.gov" and similar catalogues of public sector information.



Policies: openness, transparency and improved accountability. Promotion of digital content: innovation through private sector and civil society initiatives.



Policy implications: costs - tariffs or not. Public service mission: where to stop. Conditions for re-use and licensing. Privacy. Intellectual property rights. Public interests (national security, etc).



Workshop format:



Short interventions by panel members followed by open floor debate with attending participants.



Panel members:



Representatives from Spanish Aporta project (www.aporta.es) and Epsiplatform (www.epsiplatform.eu). Speakers from private sector and civil society. Presence from developing countries.



Initial organising team



Aporta and European Public Sector Information Platform





With this email we would like to reach out to all of you and call for possible inputs or possible interested speakers, especially from Developing Countries and civil society, on this topic, if possible before April 30th.



Best regards



Jorge Cancio

Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100414/624db0ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Apr 14 07:44:04 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:44:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <r2gf65fb55e1004132147ra8f20004gd0c96a4ead80269@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net> 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca> <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBB4947.8070800@cafonso.ca> <r2gf65fb55e1004132147ra8f20004gd0c96a4ead80269@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC5AA84.2050604@cafonso.ca>



McTim wrote:
> Carlos,
> 
> apologies, this languished in my drafts folder until now...
> 
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> OK, McTim, let us compare, if you will.
>>
>> ICANN is a non-profit which is more than 80% funded by a gTLD vendor
> 
> 
> and here I thought ICANN was largely funded by the .25 USD per domain
> fee..silly me.  Thanks for setting me straight on this, I'll get right
> on to Verisign and see if they want to donate to me, since they give
> so freely to ICANN.

Not funny... the fact remains, Verisign has the most leverage in ICANN
funding and in ICANN policies -- this is not like the happy end of a
brothers Grimm tale in which a rich good samaritan donates money, sits
back and enjoys. Or like a tax in which the tax payer has no leverage
whatsoever on the tax policies.

> 
>> which directly influences ICANN's gTLD policies -- in practice a
>> brokerage house of the big gTLD business.
> 
> That's the perception among many.  However, I didn't see that at ICANN 37.

You do not *see* it in events, McTim. It is the whole process.

> 
> Most of the complexity of the
>> current ICANN derives from being the central place where the different
>> commercial interests of registries, registrars and other commercial
>> interests try to leverage gTLD governance to suit each one's commercial
>> aims. Efforts by non-commercial sectors to participate and acquire more
>> leverage in the decision-making process are frequently thwarted or
>> outrightly sabotaged by mechanisms embedded in the ICANN structure
>> (including a frequently pro-business atitude of staff itself).
>>
>> CGI.br is a not a non-profit organization
> 
> but is it CS?
> 
> -- it is a pluralist
>> commission created with the mandate of governing .br names and
>> allocation of IP numbers within Brazil.

As I said, it is a multistakeholder commission.

>> CGI.br oversees the
>> implementation of its policies through a non-profit organization
>> (NIC.br) which guarantees that names and numbers are distributed as a
>> non-profit operation, establishing the .br names as the identity of
>> Brazil on the Internet and an asset of the commons. NIC.br manages two
>> million .br domains, IP distribution,
> 
> Does NIC.br actually sub-allocate it's own allocations or just
> evaluate LIR applications and pass them on to LACNIC? Can LIRs in BR
> go to LACNIC directly or is that not allowed under Brazilian law?

Like Japan and Mexico, Brazil has a centralized service for IP
distribution. It is not Brazilian law, it is a CGI.br policy. The
Brazilian decree just delegates to CGI.br the task of managing IP
numbers and the .br ccTLD. How IP numbers are distributed is not really
relevant to our specific discussion here.

> 
> and several research and support
>> projects (such as CERT.br, the IXP network, the research center CETIC.br
>> among others), and runs its own entire technical facilities, as well as
>> being the operations center of LACNIC -- all this with less than 20% of
>> the ICANN budget, and is completely self-sufficient, not depending on
>> any commercial business to survive.
> 
> And where does the money come from if not from leasing Internet
> resources to (mostly) commercial entities?

The "little" difference is that there are no business intermediaries in
the transaction seeking to make the most money out of it.

> 
>> There are CSs and there are CSs...
> 
> Whois to say which is which?

But I would not believe you would think they are not quite different on
several counts.

> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 14 07:44:08 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Microsoft Warns of Windows Version Expirations
In-Reply-To: <263277.44312.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <263277.44312.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <259381.51129.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear All Friends and IGC Members,
 
I would like to share the following information regarding the expiration of version of Microsoft Windows:
 
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah
----------------------
Microsoft Warns of Windows Version Expirations
Soon to retire Windows versions include:

Windows Vista (RTM). The initial shipping version of Windows Vista will no longer be supported starting April 13, 2010. Microsoft recommends that users upgrade to Vista Service Pack 2 (SP2) or to Windows 7.

Windows XP with Service Pack 2. This XP version is no longer supported as of July 13, 2010. Microsoft recommends that users upgrade to Service Pack 3 (SP3) or to Windows 7. (Also of note is Windows Vista with Service Pack 1, which will no longer be supported starting July 13, 2011, and as with Vista RTM, Microsoft recommends that users upgrade to a newer version.)

Windows 2000. The extended support phase for Windows 2000 will retire on July 13, 2010. Customers will need to upgrade to a newer Windows version in order to continue receiving security updates.

Microsoft delivers monthly security patches on the second Tuesday of every month (which is today). As Bryant notes, newer versions of Microsoft products like Windows and Office suffer from fewer overall security vulnerabilities—and fewer critical vulnerabilities—than do older versions. So Microsoft recommends keeping these products up-to-date and, when possible, to upgrade to the newest versions. "The latest versions are less impacted overall due to the improved security protections built in to these products," 
Regardless of which Windows or Office versions you're using, however, this month promises to be a punishing one for security updates. Microsoft will fix 26 vulnerabilities across 13 security bulletins, 5 of which will be rated critical. Eleven of the security bulletins affect Windows, while the remaining two affect Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100414/11983410/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 14 07:59:01 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Microsoft Warns of Windows Version Expirations
In-Reply-To: <259381.51129.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <263277.44312.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <259381.51129.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <297881.41160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

.....
Just to add some reference links for further understanding:
Support is ending for some versions of Windows 
 
Which version you are using?
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/help/which-version-of-the-windows-operating-system-am-i-running
 
What does end of service support mean?
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/help/what-does-end-of-support-mean
 Thanks
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
[ICANNian since Oct 2009]

________________________________

From: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: Imran ICANNians.com <imran at ICANNians.com>
Sent: Wed, 14 April, 2010 16:44:08
Subject: [governance] Microsoft Warns of Windows Version Expirations

Dear All Friends and IGC Members,
 
I would like to share the following information regarding the expiration of version of Microsoft Windows:
 
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah
----------------------
Microsoft Warns of Windows Version Expirations
Soon to retire Windows versions include:

Windows Vista (RTM). The initial shipping version of Windows Vista will no longer be supported starting April 13, 2010. Microsoft recommends that users upgrade to Vista Service Pack 2 (SP2) or to Windows 7.

Windows XP with Service Pack 2. This XP version is no longer supported as of July 13, 2010. Microsoft recommends that users upgrade to Service Pack 3 (SP3) or to Windows 7. (Also of note is Windows Vista with Service Pack 1, which will no longer be supported starting July 13, 2011, and as with Vista RTM, Microsoft recommends that users upgrade to a newer version.)

Windows 2000. The extended support phase for Windows 2000 will retire on July 13, 2010. Customers will need to upgrade to a newer Windows version in order to continue receiving security updates.

Microsoft delivers monthly security patches on the second Tuesday of every month (which is today). As Bryant notes, newer versions of Microsoft products like Windows and Office suffer from fewer overall security vulnerabilities—and fewer critical vulnerabilities—than do older versions. So Microsoft recommends keeping these products up-to-date and, when possible, to upgrade to the newest versions. "The latest versions are less impacted overall due to the improved security protections built in to these products," 
Regardless of which Windows or Office versions you're using, however, this month promises to be a punishing one for security updates. Microsoft will fix 26 vulnerabilities across 13 security bulletins, 5 of which will be rated critical. Eleven of the security bulletins affect Windows, while the remaining two affect Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100414/d4bae5e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Apr 14 08:28:04 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:28:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
 Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org> <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Lee

On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> To defend the revolution (?) and back up Fouad,

???  Nothing/nobody is being attacked and needs defending.  IGC wants to submit workshop proposals and it is the normal process to collectively tweak, clarify, and improve them, so I took a couple minutes to try and help boot up conversations about the three on the table.  In this context, I said I didn't see how use of the net for relief in Haiti and Somalia is an IG issue per se.  It's more an ICT4D/ICT4P application issue and is hence being discussed in bodies with that focus, inter alia GAID.

> I would ask Bil and others to explain how they know there will not be revolutionary IG ideas dreamt up to help change the developing world, and discussed at the workshop. 

I didn't imply that I know any such thing...?  But I do know that the IGC has over the years expressed concern about the IGF focusing on Internet issues generally at the expense of IG issues specifically, and rightly so, methinks.
> 
> Maybe the paragraph description needs to be tweaked, but I would hate the IGC to abandon co-organizing the revolution just when it might be getting interesting : )

So then please tweak it in a manner that turns it into a well specified proposal about IG and we're good to go...

Thanks,

Bill
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
> 
> On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
> 
> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?
> 
> Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur 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
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 

***********************************************************
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 10:19:38 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:49:38 -0430
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
 stakeholder
Message-ID: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100414/031db81a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 10:59:25 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:59:25 +0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <4BC5AA84.2050604@cafonso.ca>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 
	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca> <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BBB4947.8070800@cafonso.ca> <r2gf65fb55e1004132147ra8f20004gd0c96a4ead80269@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BC5AA84.2050604@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <w2jf65fb55e1004140759yfad04300xbe0d62294c8f1363@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>>
>> Does NIC.br actually sub-allocate it's own allocations or just
>> evaluate LIR applications and pass them on to LACNIC? Can LIRs in BR
>> go to LACNIC directly or is that not allowed under Brazilian law?
>
> Like Japan and Mexico, Brazil has a centralized service for IP
> distribution. It is not Brazilian law, it is a CGI.br policy. The
> Brazilian decree just delegates to CGI.br the task of managing IP
> numbers and the .br ccTLD. How IP numbers are distributed is not really
> relevant to our specific discussion here.


I think it is.

Can you answer the questions please? am quite curious!
<snip>
>>
>> And where does the money come from if not from leasing Internet
>> resources to (mostly) commercial entities?
>
> The "little" difference is that there are no business intermediaries in
> the transaction seeking to make the most money out of it.

Why then can I go to http://www.101domain.com/country_domain.htm and
get 2nd level .br names?


-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 11:01:40 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:01:40 +0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <j2vf65fb55e1004140801g893033bcs42d4477da358e537@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ginger, very instructive!


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI:
>
> Breakdown of IGF participants:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics


-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Apr 14 11:04:55 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:04:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <j2vf65fb55e1004140801g893033bcs42d4477da358e537@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <j2vf65fb55e1004140801g893033bcs42d4477da358e537@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC5D997.6030009@wzb.eu>

In what respect? Seriously, I am interested in how you read these figures.
thx, jeanette

McTim wrote:
> Thanks Ginger, very instructive!
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI:
>>
>> Breakdown of IGF participants:
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 11:26:15 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:15 +0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC5D997.6030009@wzb.eu>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <j2vf65fb55e1004140801g893033bcs42d4477da358e537@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4BC5D997.6030009@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <z2pf65fb55e1004140826lade5ec29raae6dc3aa0b8d0ae@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> In what respect? Seriously, I am interested in how you read these figures.

Given our recent discussion, it shows quite clearly that gov'ts send
more folk than anyone else.
Here are the numbers again:

416 from government,
277 came from civil society,
275 from technical and academic communities .
243 from business entities,
142 from intergovernmental organizations,

if you lump in the CS and T&A, you get 552
if you add up the gov't and intergovernmental you get 558

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Apr 14 11:52:28 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:52:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

OK, I'll take the bait, emergency communications and net relief in Haiti and Somalia are obviously IG issues.

The Internet governance challenges of emergency communications has been studied for at least 15 years; I am unaware of a solution.

If you wish to set up an instant IP-based network and share services, networks and/or devices across institutional lines within a jurisdiction  - in the midst of a major disaster - in which the people doing that have no jurisdiction or governance authority - what is the (general, time and life-saving) solution?  

It's not -just - a governance issue; but without suitable governance I've seen one effort after another flop - for 15 years. 

Further, some jurisdictions have - some - degree of prioritization for particular 'emergency' traffic, but that is particular to those jurisdictions, or networks controlled by individual entities.  (And a philosophical or governance question - do we abandon net neutrality in an emergency, or are all packets equal then too?

Since you're forcing my hand, and know all my tricks of trying to dump work such as rewrites on others, I'll aim to get a tweaked paragraph to the list, by tomorrow. Perhaps highlighting emergency communications as an issue where revolutionary new (governance) approaches might be hoped for - unless someone can tell me this was all figured out by xyz working group or committee or....

Lee
________________________________________ 
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:28 AM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: Governance List
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World

Hi Lee

On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> To defend the revolution (?) and back up Fouad,

???  Nothing/nobody is being attacked and needs defending.  IGC wants to submit workshop proposals and it is the normal process to collectively tweak, clarify, and improve them, so I took a couple minutes to try and help boot up conversations about the three on the table.  In this context, I said I didn't see how use of the net for relief in Haiti and Somalia is an IG issue per se.  It's more an ICT4D/ICT4P application issue and is hence being discussed in bodies with that focus, inter alia GAID.

> I would ask Bil and others to explain how they know there will not be revolutionary IG ideas dreamt up to help change the developing world, and discussed at the workshop.

I didn't imply that I know any such thing...?  But I do know that the IGC has over the years expressed concern about the IGF focusing on Internet issues generally at the expense of IG issues specifically, and rightly so, methinks.
>
> Maybe the paragraph description needs to be tweaked, but I would hate the IGC to abandon co-organizing the revolution just when it might be getting interesting : )

So then please tweak it in a manner that turns it into a well specified proposal about IG and we're good to go...

Thanks,

Bill
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>
> On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?
>
> Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur 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
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>

***********************************************************
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 12:03:48 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:03:48 +0300
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org> 
	<33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch> 
	<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 
	<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch> 
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <v2kf65fb55e1004140903ma84c62f3u7d9f6ab0544868c1@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
<snip>
might be hoped for - unless someone can tell me this was all figured
out by xyz working group or committee or....

Nethope (with help from Inveneo, et.al.)

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Apr 14 12:17:33 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:17:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
 stakeholder
In-Reply-To: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <x8JNUqYdqexLFALB@perry.co.uk>

In message <4BC5CEFA.2090100 at gmail.com>, at 09:49:38 on Wed, 14 Apr 
2010, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
>Breakdown of IGF participants:
>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/48
>4-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics

Considering one person I bumped into claimed it was going to take him 
four changes of plane to get back to New Zealand, I'm not surprised at 
the figure for Oceania. It would also be interesting to see the numbers 
scaled by population, and by Internet penetration.
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Apr 14 12:23:52 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:23:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AsYBAGaYwexLFAM9@perry.co.uk>

In message 
<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 11:52:28 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 
writes
>The Internet governance challenges of emergency communications has
>been studied for at least 15 years; I am unaware of a solution.

One suggestion which has some mileage, and can be done inside one 
jurisdiction, is for a Government to pass a law saying you can't sue a 
company for diverting resources to an emergency situation, and thereby 
breaching his supply contract with you.

A trivial example: "Those satellite phones you ordered for your park 
rangers, sorry the batch we were about to send you, someone else paid us 
to jump the queue and they've gone to an earthquake zone instead".
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Apr 14 12:26:43 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:26:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <v2kf65fb55e1004140903ma84c62f3u7d9f6ab0544868c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
 	<33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
 	<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 	<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
 	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<v2kf65fb55e1004140903ma84c62f3u7d9f6ab0544868c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D13@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

All very cool; and I notice they started an innovation program last year. Which doesn't target emergency communications.

They do have: ICT Global Connectivity Database – creating a secure electronic repository for connectivity information to enable better decision-making and knowledge management. 

For emergencies the partnered relief agencies and private sector do:

NetHope has worked on Emergency Relief Services with its members and the broader humanitarian sector in the following ways since 2003:

      Interagency coordination of ICT assessments and related response
    *

      Consolidation of ICT related appeals to the private sector
    *

      Knowledge sharing and development of ICT related hardware and software solutions to enable better communication
    *

      Enhance preparedness for emergencies in regions likely to be affected by emergencies through pre-deployment of equipment and training

Maybe I'm missing something but there's a multistakeholder group missing from the website...oh yeah, governments.  And hence, just maybe, governance.   

Still, great org, cool to have at a workshop. I'm sure they'd have suggestions about what works and doesn;t work for them  and where they see need for innovation or revolutionary ideas.

Lee

________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:03 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight
Cc: William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
<snip>
might be hoped for - unless someone can tell me this was all figured
out by xyz working group or committee or....

Nethope (with help from Inveneo, et.al.)

--
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Apr 14 13:09:02 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:09:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
 Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org> <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> OK, I'll take the bait, emergency communications and net relief in Haiti and Somalia are obviously IG issues.
> 
> The Internet governance challenges of emergency communications has been studied for at least 15 years; I am unaware of a solution.
> 
> If you wish to set up an instant IP-based network and share services, networks and/or devices across institutional lines within a jurisdiction  - in the midst of a major disaster - in which the people doing that have no jurisdiction or governance authority - what is the (general, time and life-saving) solution?  

Well, there's the The Tampere Convention  http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/tampere/index.html.  

I guess I see this as governance of an periodically utilized application space (with most of the action being offline) rather than as governance of the Internet.   
> 
> It's not -just - a governance issue; but without suitable governance I've seen one effort after another flop - for 15 years. 
> 
> Further, some jurisdictions have - some - degree of prioritization for particular 'emergency' traffic, but that is particular to those jurisdictions, or networks controlled by individual entities.  (And a philosophical or governance question - do we abandon net neutrality in an emergency, or are all packets equal then too?

That's been international telecom law since the telegraph.  Governments get priority, emergencies get special priority.
> 
> Since you're forcing my hand, and know all my tricks of trying to dump work such as rewrites on others,

Uh, yeah...:-)

> I'll aim to get a tweaked paragraph to the list, by tomorrow. Perhaps highlighting emergency communications as an issue where revolutionary new (governance) approaches might be hoped for - unless someone can tell me this was all figured out by xyz working group or committee or....

Go for it if you like, emergency comm is an interesting field (had to get into this a bunch when I did the ICT for Peace report for Tunis) and I'd certainly attend a good workshop on the collective management thereof.  But proposals are nominally due tomorrow and as far as I can tell you are completely recasting this workshop, which people might want to discuss before saying this will be one of IGC's main contributions to IGF 2010...

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> ________________________________________ 
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:28 AM
> To: Lee W McKnight
> Cc: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
> 
> Hi Lee
> 
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> 
>> To defend the revolution (?) and back up Fouad,
> 
> ???  Nothing/nobody is being attacked and needs defending.  IGC wants to submit workshop proposals and it is the normal process to collectively tweak, clarify, and improve them, so I took a couple minutes to try and help boot up conversations about the three on the table.  In this context, I said I didn't see how use of the net for relief in Haiti and Somalia is an IG issue per se.  It's more an ICT4D/ICT4P application issue and is hence being discussed in bodies with that focus, inter alia GAID.
> 
>> I would ask Bil and others to explain how they know there will not be revolutionary IG ideas dreamt up to help change the developing world, and discussed at the workshop.
> 
> I didn't imply that I know any such thing...?  But I do know that the IGC has over the years expressed concern about the IGF focusing on Internet issues generally at the expense of IG issues specifically, and rightly so, methinks.
>> 
>> Maybe the paragraph description needs to be tweaked, but I would hate the IGC to abandon co-organizing the revolution just when it might be getting interesting : )
> 
> So then please tweak it in a manner that turns it into a well specified proposal about IG and we're good to go...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:12 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>> 
>> On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?
>> 
>> Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.
>> 
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur 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
>> CI is 50
>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 

***********************************************************
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Apr 14 14:44:43 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:44:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D16@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Bill,

Tampere is great, good progress of past decade and all that.

But when you say:
That's been international telecom law since the telegraph.  Governments get priority, emergencies get special priority.

Lee observes: 

Not on the best-effort Internet.

Anyway, according to US law the Internet is an info service anyway and not telecoms; just reaffirmed by the appeals court remember. 

And oh yeah there's no universally accepted 'degree of emergency' priority override capability, just yet. (There is current IETF work underway on emergency communications, eg see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07; and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13)

Could be a governance issue, could be a good-enough work-around (as by nethope), could be a 'purely' technical fix coming soon from IETF.

Anyway, I just meant to highlight that nascent Internet governance issues could be embedded in seemingly technical areas such as emergency communications, even as -telecoms- treaties; and self-organized cs + private industry help in current emergencie, and IETF dpoes its thing .

So I'll tweak a paragraph tonight, not drastically revise or re-frame topic. (I promise Fouad!)

Lee

PS: And Bill I could tell you which - governance - institution got me into this way back when, but then I'd have to kill you. ; ) 



________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:09 PM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: Governance List
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World

Hi

On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> OK, I'll take the bait, emergency communications and net relief in Haiti and Somalia are obviously IG issues.
>
> The Internet governance challenges of emergency communications has been studied for at least 15 years; I am unaware of a solution.
>
> If you wish to set up an instant IP-based network and share services, networks and/or devices across institutional lines within a jurisdiction  - in the midst of a major disaster - in which the people doing that have no jurisdiction or governance authority - what is the (general, time and life-saving) solution?

Well, there's the The Tampere Convention  http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/tampere/index.html.

I guess I see this as governance of an periodically utilized application space (with most of the action being offline) rather than as governance of the Internet.
>
> It's not -just - a governance issue; but without suitable governance I've seen one effort after another flop - for 15 years.
>
> Further, some jurisdictions have - some - degree of prioritization for particular 'emergency' traffic, but that is particular to those jurisdictions, or networks controlled by individual entities.  (And a philosophical or governance question - do we abandon net neutrality in an emergency, or are all packets equal then too?

That's been international telecom law since the telegraph.  Governments get priority, emergencies get special priority.
>
> Since you're forcing my hand, and know all my tricks of trying to dump work such as rewrites on others,

Uh, yeah...:-)

> I'll aim to get a tweaked paragraph to the list, by tomorrow. Perhaps highlighting emergency communications as an issue where revolutionary new (governance) approaches might be hoped for - unless someone can tell me this was all figured out by xyz working group or committee or....

Go for it if you like, emergency comm is an interesting field (had to get into this a bunch when I did the ICT for Peace report for Tunis) and I'd certainly attend a good workshop on the collective management thereof.  But proposals are nominally due tomorrow and as far as I can tell you are completely recasting this workshop, which people might want to discuss before saying this will be one of IGC's main contributions to IGF 2010...

Cheers,

Bill
>
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:28 AM
> To: Lee W McKnight
> Cc: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>
> Hi Lee
>
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>> To defend the revolution (?) and back up Fouad,
>
> ???  Nothing/nobody is being attacked and needs defending.  IGC wants to submit workshop proposals and it is the normal process to collectively tweak, clarify, and improve them, so I took a couple minutes to try and help boot up conversations about the three on the table.  In this context, I said I didn't see how use of the net for relief in Haiti and Somalia is an IG issue per se.  It's more an ICT4D/ICT4P application issue and is hence being discussed in bodies with that focus, inter alia GAID.
>
>> I would ask Bil and others to explain how they know there will not be revolutionary IG ideas dreamt up to help change the developing world, and discussed at the workshop.
>
> I didn't imply that I know any such thing...?  But I do know that the IGC has over the years expressed concern about the IGF focusing on Internet issues generally at the expense of IG issues specifically, and rightly so, methinks.
>>
>> Maybe the paragraph description needs to be tweaked, but I would hate the IGC to abandon co-organizing the revolution just when it might be getting interesting : )
>
> So then please tweak it in a manner that turns it into a well specified proposal about IG and we're good to go...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:12 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>>
>> On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?
>>
>> Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur 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
>> CI is 50
>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
>

***********************************************************
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Apr 14 17:58:22 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:58:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <x8JNUqYdqexLFALB@perry.co.uk>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <x8JNUqYdqexLFALB@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701D5FCA51E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

"Oceania" is also pretty sparsely populated compared to Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:18 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region
> and stakeholder
> 
> In message <4BC5CEFA.2090100 at gmail.com>, at 09:49:38 on Wed, 14 Apr
> 2010, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
> >Breakdown of IGF participants:
> >http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-
> programme/48
> >4-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
> 
> Considering one person I bumped into claimed it was going to take him
> four changes of plane to get back to New Zealand, I'm not surprised at
> the figure for Oceania. It would also be interesting to see the numbers
> scaled by population, and by Internet penetration.
> --
> 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 19:54:26 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:54:26 +0500
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D16@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
	 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D16@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <k2s701af9f71004141654p3de7ddfr8547e900f54207a2@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All,

Apologies for coming back into this discussion despite the few
questions asked earlier. I wanted our community members to stimulate
ideas and the best description and opportunities possible. As this is
an idea and a proposal, all are free to edit and their ideas to the
discussion.

I believe that I might have actually tested some of the IG related
ideas and issues within the past few days with reference to our
"PayPal Authorize Pakistan Now! Campaign" housed on Facebook:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/266093 that has grown into 5500 plus
members triggering the debate across hundreds of posts in the
Pakistani Internet world that resulted in the government, private
sector and civil society joining hands to solve this issue together
and finally made contact with PayPal and discussions are under way!

The revolutionary idea here was to develop an online campaign with
available tools, make the Pakistani knowledge workers and involving
masses aware of this issue, create dialogues  while engaging the
citizens to explore what they need to evolve the local and global
knowledge economy participation opportunities and change society's
socio-economic conditions.

This is one of its kind debates where a multistakeholder model led by
an open, inclusive and collaborative space resulted in a considerable
campaign and got everyone involved, an issue identified, efforts and
synergies combined and the issue pursued towards solution. An IG issue
that created a revolutionary approach to solving a long-time pending
issue and this is just the beginning. Here are some examples:

Citizen Dialogues on the PayPal issue in Pakistan:
http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=en&q=paypal+pakistan&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=o&oq=

PayPal in Pakistan – Looks Possible, but it May Take Time!
http://propakistani.pk/2010/04/14/paypal-in-pakistan/

Do We Need Pay Pal In Pakistan?
http://www.codeweek.pk/2010/04/pay-pal-in-pakistan/

Another relevant example is that IGF MAG Member Barrister Zahid Jamil
from the private sector is also very active on this issue and here is
a live example of how multistakeholders are creating dialogues online
and offline:

IGF MAG Member Barrister Zahid Jamil participating in the CIO PayPal Roundtable:
http://ciopakistan.com/2010/04/paypal-unwired-coffee-connexions/

I have a well tested example in this case, I have proof online:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/266093 and all this started with a
simple blog post: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/

You are all free to adjust the text and add appropriate ideas to its
description and I would request IGC to own this since this has been
generated for IGC led IGF workhops!

---- Best

Fouad Bajwa


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Tampere is great, good progress of past decade and all that.
>
> But when you say:
> That's been international telecom law since the telegraph.  Governments get priority, emergencies get special priority.
>
> Lee observes:
>
> Not on the best-effort Internet.
>
> Anyway, according to US law the Internet is an info service anyway and not telecoms; just reaffirmed by the appeals court remember.
>
> And oh yeah there's no universally accepted 'degree of emergency' priority override capability, just yet. (There is current IETF work underway on emergency communications, eg see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07; and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13)
>
> Could be a governance issue, could be a good-enough work-around (as by nethope), could be a 'purely' technical fix coming soon from IETF.
>
> Anyway, I just meant to highlight that nascent Internet governance issues could be embedded in seemingly technical areas such as emergency communications, even as -telecoms- treaties; and self-organized cs + private industry help in current emergencie, and IETF dpoes its thing .
>
> So I'll tweak a paragraph tonight, not drastically revise or re-frame topic. (I promise Fouad!)
>
> Lee
>
> PS: And Bill I could tell you which - governance - institution got me into this way back when, but then I'd have to kill you. ; )
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:09 PM
> To: Lee W McKnight
> Cc: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>
> Hi
>
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>> OK, I'll take the bait, emergency communications and net relief in Haiti and Somalia are obviously IG issues.
>>
>> The Internet governance challenges of emergency communications has been studied for at least 15 years; I am unaware of a solution.
>>
>> If you wish to set up an instant IP-based network and share services, networks and/or devices across institutional lines within a jurisdiction  - in the midst of a major disaster - in which the people doing that have no jurisdiction or governance authority - what is the (general, time and life-saving) solution?
>
> Well, there's the The Tampere Convention  http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/tampere/index.html.
>
> I guess I see this as governance of an periodically utilized application space (with most of the action being offline) rather than as governance of the Internet.
>>
>> It's not -just - a governance issue; but without suitable governance I've seen one effort after another flop - for 15 years.
>>
>> Further, some jurisdictions have - some - degree of prioritization for particular 'emergency' traffic, but that is particular to those jurisdictions, or networks controlled by individual entities.  (And a philosophical or governance question - do we abandon net neutrality in an emergency, or are all packets equal then too?
>
> That's been international telecom law since the telegraph.  Governments get priority, emergencies get special priority.
>>
>> Since you're forcing my hand, and know all my tricks of trying to dump work such as rewrites on others,
>
> Uh, yeah...:-)
>
>> I'll aim to get a tweaked paragraph to the list, by tomorrow. Perhaps highlighting emergency communications as an issue where revolutionary new (governance) approaches might be hoped for - unless someone can tell me this was all figured out by xyz working group or committee or....
>
> Go for it if you like, emergency comm is an interesting field (had to get into this a bunch when I did the ICT for Peace report for Tunis) and I'd certainly attend a good workshop on the collective management thereof.  But proposals are nominally due tomorrow and as far as I can tell you are completely recasting this workshop, which people might want to discuss before saying this will be one of IGC's main contributions to IGF 2010...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:28 AM
>> To: Lee W McKnight
>> Cc: Governance List
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>>
>> Hi Lee
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>
>>> To defend the revolution (?) and back up Fouad,
>>
>> ???  Nothing/nobody is being attacked and needs defending.  IGC wants to submit workshop proposals and it is the normal process to collectively tweak, clarify, and improve them, so I took a couple minutes to try and help boot up conversations about the three on the table.  In this context, I said I didn't see how use of the net for relief in Haiti and Somalia is an IG issue per se.  It's more an ICT4D/ICT4P application issue and is hence being discussed in bodies with that focus, inter alia GAID.
>>
>>> I would ask Bil and others to explain how they know there will not be revolutionary IG ideas dreamt up to help change the developing world, and discussed at the workshop.
>>
>> I didn't imply that I know any such thing...?  But I do know that the IGC has over the years expressed concern about the IGF focusing on Internet issues generally at the expense of IG issues specifically, and rightly so, methinks.
>>>
>>> Maybe the paragraph description needs to be tweaked, but I would hate the IGC to abandon co-organizing the revolution just when it might be getting interesting : )
>>
>> So then please tweak it in a manner that turns it into a well specified proposal about IG and we're good to go...
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:12 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>>>
>>> On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?
>>>
>>> Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Project Coordinator
>>> Consumers International
>>> Kuala Lumpur 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
>>> CI is 50
>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> 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
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 19:56:54 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:56:54 +0500
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet 
In-Reply-To: <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
	 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <y2j701af9f71004141656gd47cf2fdt4c00bd5eef064825@mail.gmail.com>

Please feel free to add IG to the workshop proposal Jeremy because the
whole approach is to keep it within the IG focus and that's where we
will start this workshop from!!!


-- Fouad

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to
> be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance,
> and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be
> discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?
>
> Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack
> of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you
> consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop
> organiser?  Just a question.
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur 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
>
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 20:14:37 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:14:37 +1200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <AsYBAGaYwexLFAM9@perry.co.uk>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
	 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <AsYBAGaYwexLFAM9@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <j2z83b95841004141714t74bd6515md95698cf1758441c@mail.gmail.com>

I am not an IG expert and don't claim to be one. However, from a
layperson's perspective when you are discussing "Emergency" what is it
that you are discussing:-

1) Infrastructure;
2)Content - prioritisation of packets;
3)Supply of Equipment or Contracts of Service or Supply etc deriving
some sort of legal obligations of contractual nature;
4)Interconnection - categorisation of traffic etc.

Any discussions, on Emergency, I would suggest be specific and
highlight the context. Otherwise, we would be seeing the issues like
how the "Blind Men of Indostan" saw the "elephant.

My view of Supply contracts and "emergency" would be that in any
ordinary contracts, you would always have "Force Majeur" provisions
anyway, and in terms of competing obligations to supply to Telcos etc,
the demands would be differ depending on the context of the Supplier
where the Supplier is a multinational and supplying to many countries
or clientele scattered across the world - how does that Supplier treat
prioritisation of clientele. The issues that emerge in this context,
would whether there are International Conventions that bind his
capacity to prioritise such as United Nations Convention on Contracts
for the International Sale of Goods and would depend on whether the
Supplier's commercial vehicle's jurisdiction has ratified the same and
the wider implications of the Supplier's domestic jurisdiction's local
law or the actual contract's governing law.  It follows that there are
of course variables to any similar situation.

Kind Regards,

Sala (Fiji)







On 4/15/10, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,
> at 11:52:28 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> writes
>>The Internet governance challenges of emergency communications has
>>been studied for at least 15 years; I am unaware of a solution.
>
> One suggestion which has some mileage, and can be done inside one
> jurisdiction, is for a Government to pass a law saying you can't sue a
> company for diverting resources to an emergency situation, and thereby
> breaching his supply contract with you.
>
> A trivial example: "Those satellite phones you ordered for your park
> rangers, sorry the batch we were about to send you, someone else paid us
> to jump the queue and they've gone to an earthquake zone instead".
> --
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Apr 14 20:42:37 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:42:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
 Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
In-Reply-To: <DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org> <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4579EA9B-B1B7-4B4F-AF8D-7390256C8268@ciroap.org>

On 15/04/2010, at 1:09 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Go for it if you like, emergency comm is an interesting field (had to get into this a bunch when I did the ICT for Peace report for Tunis) and I'd certainly attend a good workshop on the collective management thereof.  But proposals are nominally due tomorrow and as far as I can tell you are completely recasting this workshop, which people might want to discuss before saying this will be one of IGC's main contributions to IGF 2010...

The workshop description already explicitly mentions the emergency response to the Haiti earthquake crisis in the first paragraph, so I don't think it's a complete recasting of the workshop.  Rather, emergency communications are just one application for revolutionary ideas with IG implications.

So I'm inclined to post this workshop proposal and the other two just so that we have our foot in the door, but we will have a lot of freedom to continue discussions and modify the text to make sure everyone is satisfied with them.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Apr 14 22:51:56 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:51:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <4579EA9B-B1B7-4B4F-AF8D-7390256C8268@ciroap.org>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4579EA9B-B1B7-4B4F-AF8D-7390256C8268@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D17@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

sounds good to me 
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:42 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World

On 15/04/2010, at 1:09 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Go for it if you like, emergency comm is an interesting field (had to get into this a bunch when I did the ICT for Peace report for Tunis) and I'd certainly attend a good workshop on the collective management thereof.  But proposals are nominally due tomorrow and as far as I can tell you are completely recasting this workshop, which people might want to discuss before saying this will be one of IGC's main contributions to IGF 2010...

The workshop description already explicitly mentions the emergency response to the Haiti earthquake crisis in the first paragraph, so I don't think it's a complete recasting of the workshop.  Rather, emergency communications are just one application for revolutionary ideas with IG implications.

So I'm inclined to post this workshop proposal and the other two just so that we have our foot in the door, but we will have a lot of freedom to continue discussions and modify the text to make sure everyone is satisfied with them.

--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur 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

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From natasha at apc.org  Thu Apr 15 00:37:49 2010
From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:37:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius
In-Reply-To: <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <55F55F0D-447C-4D1D-AA8F-C607A3E83A69@apc.org>

I really like and support this suggestion of a session focussed on IP  
and copyright.  Parminder, count me in to help...

On 05 Apr 2010, at 3:09 PM, Parminder wrote:

> I suggest that we get into deeper IP and Internet debates, which  
> represent some of the most hotly contested issues today, and in  
> which area a lot of policy work is going on (ACTA for instance)
>
> Can we hold a workshop on ' Transnational enforcement of a new  
> information order – Issues of rights and democracy'. (tentative title)
>
> Basically we will discuss issues that have come up around ACTA (for  
> instance see the latest posting on IP watch at http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=10061 
>   )  as the main focus. However some other issues may also come up -  
> like Google - China stand-off, Google's appeal to US gov to consider  
> global information flows as a trade issue and use trade related  
> enforcements in this area, Google and others cutting off or limiting  
> their services to countries on US's trade sanctions list (trade  
> embargo issues and IG is mentioned in the Vilnius  program  
> document), non availability of major online payment systems in  
> countries like Pakistan etc .....
>
> The attempt here is to move beyond the focus on governance of the  
> basic technical/ logical  infrastructure  (ICANN etc) also to the  
> governance of the emerging global information infrastructure. (At a  
> still different level, though connected, is the governance of the  
> social interactions/ networking infrastructure, but that is not  
> something this workshop will get into)
>
> The above is just illustrative of the proposed scope of the  
> workshop. Will try and put up a short write up for it separately.  
> Parminder
>
>
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On 24/03/2010, at 8:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal
>>> so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful
>>> discourse.
>>>
>> Sorry for letting this slide for a while; I've been away.  Anyway,  
>> there is very little I would change in Fouad's workshop proposal,  
>> but here are the two workshop proposals that are currently on the  
>> table for discussion, the second one now fleshed out a bit.  Please  
>> provide any comments on these so that we can submit them both for  
>> the MAG's consideration by the 15th.
>>
>> WORKSHOP 1
>> ==========
>>
>> Title: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change  
>> the Developing World
>>
>> Objective:
>> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share  
>> positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the  
>> developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for  
>> both developed and developing world participants. An example may be  
>> the ideas presented by Tim Berners-Lee at TED for Opening Data to  
>> the world that helped in providing concrete relief information on  
>> the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be  
>> Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis.
>>
>> With the participation of all stakeholders, including youth, the  
>> workshop will record the many positive ideas that evolve from this  
>> venue, measure the changes that they have enabled over time, and at  
>> the next IGF meeting identify which ideas had the greatest impact  
>> over the past 12 months since presented.
>>
>> Format:
>> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format  
>> will be 5 minutes given to each of the participants to share an  
>> existing or revolutionary idea. The Internet governance dimensions  
>> of each idea will also be explored.  All the ideas will be recorded  
>> and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact over  
>> the following year.
>>
>> Organisers:
>> Internet Governance Caucus
>> [ISOC?]
>> [OECD?]
>>
>> Contact: Fouad Bajwa, Jeremy Malcolm
>>
>>
>> WORKSHOP 2
>> ==========
>> Title: Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010,  
>> and looking forward to WSIS 2015
>>
>> Objective:
>> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and  
>> procedural approaches that have been applied to the problems of  
>> Internet governance over the last 15 years, and facilitate the  
>> sharing of various perspectives about the effectiveness and  
>> legitimacy of each approach.  In each case reference will be made  
>> to the WSIS process criteria which recommend the full involvement  
>> of governments, the private sector, civil society, and  
>> international organizations in Internet governance arrangements.
>>
>> In parallel, the workshop will also look back to the period of  
>> 2003-2005 when the first meetings of the World Summit on the  
>> Information Society (WSIS) was held, and forward to a future  
>> meeting in 2015.  Questions to be asked include, would the same  
>> decisions about Internet governance that were made in 2005 have  
>> been made today, are the WSIS process criteria due for revision,  
>> and how will the role of private actors differ between the two  
>> summits?
>>
>> Format:
>> The workshop will take a interactive panel format, beginning with  
>> brief presentations from experts from each of the stakeholder  
>> groups (including academia), followed by a moderated between  
>> panelists and the floor.
>>
>> Organisers:
>> Internet Governance Caucus
>> [Others - IT for Change, APC, CI?]
>> [Government of France?]
>> [Cisco?]
>>
>> Contact: Jeremy Malcolm, ...
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ 
\//\\//\/
Natasha Primo
National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative
Association for Progressive Communications
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel/Fax: +27118372122
Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100415/f6d502c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Apr 15 01:26:46 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:26:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <j2z83b95841004141714t74bd6515md95698cf1758441c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AsYBAGaYwexLFAM9@perry.co.uk>
 <j2z83b95841004141714t74bd6515md95698cf1758441c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Hyrg3ixWOqxLFAMv@perry.co.uk>

In message 
<j2z83b95841004141714t74bd6515md95698cf1758441c at mail.gmail.com>, at 
12:14:37 on Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> writes
>I am not an IG expert and don't claim to be one. However, from a
>layperson's perspective when you are discussing "Emergency" what is it
>that you are discussing:-
>
>1) Infrastructure;
>2)Content - prioritisation of packets;
>3)Supply of Equipment or Contracts of Service or Supply etc deriving
>some sort of legal obligations of contractual nature;
>4)Interconnection - categorisation of traffic etc.

I am discussing mainly a "natural disaster" (although that includes 
man-made things like terrorist attacks) which interrupts communications.

>My view of Supply contracts and "emergency" would be that in any
>ordinary contracts, you would always have "Force Majeur" provisions

That's normally used to describe the circumstances where a supplier 
cannot deliver his contract to a customer, because the supplier is 
directly affected by the incident.

What I'm talking about is a generally unaffected supplier deciding to 
starve an otherwise unaffected customer in order to help a 
disaster-struck one.

It's just one small part of helping disaster recovery, but it's 
something that I think Governments can (and need to) lay the foundations 
for.
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 02:46:53 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:46:53 +1200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <Hyrg3ixWOqxLFAMv@perry.co.uk>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org>
	 <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	 <AsYBAGaYwexLFAM9@perry.co.uk>
	 <j2z83b95841004141714t74bd6515md95698cf1758441c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <Hyrg3ixWOqxLFAMv@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <y2p83b95841004142346k11f79391g996f6fdf9e19c8e3@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Roland,

I think your suggestion is an absolutely critical aspect of
Communications hinging on Internet Governance that needs to be
addressed particularly in light of the fact that the frequency of
"natural disasters" - earthquakes, tsunamis etc.

Bill pointed to the Tampere Convention on the Provision of
Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief
Operations.

Policy analysts, advisers within the State need to examine whether it
is critical for their jurisdictions to sign up. I know Fiji and
perhaps American Samoa has not signed up, as yet or ratified the same.
This could be a Regulation within the Telecommunications Act. In terms
of the issue you raised with the unaffected supplier and the
unaffected customer, if within a nation, in Fiji, you could gain
recourse under the Consolidated Fair Trading Decree - "hoarding" or
any expressly prohibited conduct depends on the nature of the
"conduct".

Extraterritorially, it would be helpful if there was some sort of
basic consistent established principles of expressly forbidden conduct
in multiple jurisdictions that would help squeeze out similar
activities or conduct.

In Fiji,  the recent Hurricane Tomas that caused alot of damages to
telecommunication equipment which we were reeling from. For small
island countries that are still considered "LDCs", the capacity to get
back on its feet is always an issue and this is tied to Governance in
a real sense. With a politically volatile climate, competing national
priorities for a country that has limited economic wealth can force
telcos to struggle with alot more variables than their counterparts in
developed nations would normally struggle with.

I like your suggesion, Roland :).

Cheers

Sala

On 4/15/10, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <j2z83b95841004141714t74bd6515md95698cf1758441c at mail.gmail.com>, at
> 12:14:37 on Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> writes
>>I am not an IG expert and don't claim to be one. However, from a
>>layperson's perspective when you are discussing "Emergency" what is it
>>that you are discussing:-
>>
>>1) Infrastructure;
>>2)Content - prioritisation of packets;
>>3)Supply of Equipment or Contracts of Service or Supply etc deriving
>>some sort of legal obligations of contractual nature;
>>4)Interconnection - categorisation of traffic etc.
>
> I am discussing mainly a "natural disaster" (although that includes
> man-made things like terrorist attacks) which interrupts communications.
>
>>My view of Supply contracts and "emergency" would be that in any
>>ordinary contracts, you would always have "Force Majeur" provisions
>
> That's normally used to describe the circumstances where a supplier
> cannot deliver his contract to a customer, because the supplier is
> directly affected by the incident.
>
> What I'm talking about is a generally unaffected supplier deciding to
> starve an otherwise unaffected customer in order to help a
> disaster-struck one.
>
> It's just one small part of helping disaster recovery, but it's
> something that I think Governments can (and need to) lay the foundations
> for.
> --
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Status Report 15.4.10.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 163328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100415/ab2b3524/attachment.doc>

From natasha at apc.org  Thu Apr 15 04:47:24 2010
From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:47:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 2: Successes and failures of
In-Reply-To: <t2mf65fb55e1004132157zde5f0e50l76a32ab59b3a45e8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D000EA1-95F9-41ED-AC81-E5E414EC4458@ciroap.org>  <C65260F3-1129-4780-9512-6AF782AFF98F@graduateinstitute.ch>  <4A5D1675-B605-4F9C-9927-FA159B3AB71E@ciroap.org> <t2mf65fb55e1004132157zde5f0e50l76a32ab59b3a45e8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0089F5D1-2455-42E9-8006-A01E6885DEB3@apc.org>

Hello All,

Just briefly ...

I agree with Bill that the workshop scope would need to be clarified  
further and also that, as Jeremy proposes,  this work can be done in  
subsequent planning discussions. What is important is that the scope  
is framed such that panelist talk to similar issues and that we cave  
have an actual *conversation* rather than inputs that talk past each  
other. I think an active moderator would be part of that equation ...  
and that selecting a moderator would require as much care as selecting  
panelists.

I don't think we should at this stage get too up in what anyone  
considers failed or successful processes, though. That would be the  
subject for the panel discussion, no?

Jeremy, in response to an earlier question, APC is available to help  
coordinate this workshop.

Thanks,
Natasha



On 14 Apr 2010, at 6:57 AM, McTim wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>  
> wrote:
>> On 13/04/2010, at 3:56 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> This workshop will compare the changing institutional and procedural
>> approaches that have been applied to the problems of Internet  
>> governance
>> over the last 15 years, and facilitate the sharing of various  
>> perspectives
>> about the effectiveness and legitimacy of each approach.
>>
>> Could someone provide some examples to clarify the focus here?
>>  What institutional and procedural approaches to which problems of  
>> Internet
>> governance would we be talking about?  Only actually existing or also
>> proposed?  Is the idea to consider the relative merits of, for  
>> example,
>> intergovernmental vs. MS vs. private sector arrangements?
>>
>> Existing past and present approaches, ranging from very informal
>> decentralised arrangements for governance of Usenet, more  
>> hierarchical
>> private approaches such as the RIRs and IETF, the evolving private
>> management of the DNS (in the shadow of governments) through ICANN,
>> multi-stakeholder experiments such as CGI.br, purely governmental  
>> such as
>> the OECD... you can think of as many examples as I can.
>>
>> If so, a comparative assessment would probably be better if one could
>> identify issue spaces to which the different models were applied,  
>> e.g.
>> intergovernmental vs PS approaches to privacy rules, rather than  
>> comparing
>> apples and oranges.
>>
>> I agree with the desirability of not drawing too many close  
>> parallels across
>> different governance domains, would think that we can drill down to  
>> that
>> level once we have selected the panelists and begun to brainstorm  
>> with them
>> about the exact content of the session.
>>
>> In each case reference will be made to the WSIS process criteria  
>> which
>> recommend the full involvement of governments, the private sector,  
>> civil
>> society, and international organizations in Internet governance
>> arrangements.
>>
>> Would this be the criteria for making judgements as to which is a  
>> success
>> and which is a failure?  In which case everything that's not MS  
>> would be
>> deemed a failure? (!) Or  would there be some other criteria?  If  
>> so, could
>> we have an illustration or two of successes and failures and the  
>> basis for
>> the judgement?
>>
>> No that would be too simplistic.  I probably wouldn't be a  
>> panelist, so my
>> opinions aren't worth anything, but I would say that there are  
>> privately-run
>> ccTLD registries like SIDN, Nominet and (to a lesser extent) auDA  
>> that have
>> largely been a success, whereas clear failures to date have been  
>> the ITU-led
>> process around the ENUM standard, and the RIR-led migration to IPv6.
>
> I don't understand why either of these can be considered failures.
>
> I've been involved in both processes and it is fairly trivial to get
> either one. Just because users haven't adopted either one as much as
> some would like doesn't mean they are "failures".
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ 
\//\\//\/
Natasha Primo
National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative
Association for Progressive Communications
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel/Fax: +27118372122
Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo








____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 15 05:34:21 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:04:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnat?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ional_enforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=96_Issues_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?of_rights_and_democracy?=
In-Reply-To: <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net> <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net>

Hi Bill

Will first deal with the 'quibble' , because it sets up the rest of my 
argument.

 >> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm 
or order. (Parminder)

 > Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing. (Bill)

'Or' here is not used to suggest same-ness, but to mean 'whichever way 
one may be inclined to take it'. Information and communication (I & C) 
paradigm would  a more conservative, perhaps functionalist, way to 
seeing it, and 'I & C order' a more political way, perhaps even 
suggesting power imbalances, dominations etc.

The suggested tittle of the workshop 'Transnational (or trans-border) 
enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy' 
deliberately  carries the  term  'order'.

What is suggested is not so much one-off enforcements (though that 
issues is also implicated) but an overall enforcement of a new 'I and C' 
order through ACTA like globally non-democratic treaties which would of 
course either  become the default on which big companies will provide or 
withdraw service (private enforcements) or/ and its provisions will be 
more or less forced upon less powerful countries through bilateral FTAs.

Also to note that officials associated with FTA have often said this is 
strictly about 'enforcement' and not new IP regimes, but many in the 
civil society and some others think it is a new IP regime with clear 
global aspirations and implications.

(The main term used in the workshop name is 'transnational enforcement' 
and 'trans-border enforcement' is included as one part within it).

It is significant to see that on the Internet 'borders' have a very 
different meanings, and trans-border enforcements thus take very 
different dimensions. Would cutting off services and connectivity for IP 
violation also operate at and through global interconnection points 
and/or through recognising IP address of some countries? Some such 
things already happen.

We would also like to include trade embargo issues on the Internet - 
like denial of many services by US based companies to countries like 
Iran and Syria, and well, also, Pakistan ( e-payment services for 
instance). In fact, such trade embargo issues are mentioned in the 
Vilnius program document.

 >After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing 
difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way >in 
multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and 
costs of building an architecture through >unilateral imposition and 
bilateral FTAs...

While we should certainly compare  WIPO  and ACTA  settings, and that is 
a central intention of the proposed workshop, the above seem to me  to 
be letting off ACTA protagonists too easily, and simplisitically. But 
you are of course entitled to your views, and these can be discussed at 
the proposed workshop.

 It is my view that, what problems they face at WIPO have largely to do 
with the fact that these protagonists are in a hurry to construct a 
maximalist global IP architecture to ensure that it becomes the basis 
for their continued global domination.

But please do suggest changes to the workshop note, as may others.

Parminder

William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Parminder could you help me to understand the desired focus?  To 
> me, trans-border enforcement connotes a government or other actor 
> based in one territorial unit unilaterally establishing/enforcing 
> rules applicable in other units, i.e. extraterritoriality.  If memory 
> serves this was the focus of the IGC workshop we were on in Hyderabad. 
>  In contrast, ACTA and the UNESCO treaty (which will be hard to 
> 'enforce') involve the negotiated harmonization of rules, with 
> enforcement being an undertaking each government commits to within its 
> jurisdiction.  These are rather different architectures, no?
>
> If the driving interest here is unilateral/extraterritorial, I'd 
> suggest picking cases in which that model's been followed and 
> comparing, generalizing.  If instead it is the substantive policy 
> problem of IPR, maybe it'd be interesting to frame this as a 
> comparative assessment of different policy architectures for that? 
>  After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing 
> difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way in 
> multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and 
> costs of building an architecture through unilateral imposition and 
> bilateral FTAs...Just a suggestion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
> PS: Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing.
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Parminder wrote:
>
>> Attempting a  quick first draft for the proposed workshop.
>>
>> Proposed workshop title : 'Transnational (or trans-border) 
>> enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy'
>>
>> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm 
>> or order. In this respect, many technical issues interact with 
>> institutional frameworks around information and knowledge - like IP, 
>> but also FoE, cultural rights etc - to develop a unique and 
>> unprecedented global system of information and knowledge flows and 
>> controls. Trans-border institutional mechanism become a key issue in 
>> this regards - and trans-border enforcement of IP laws is a strongly 
>> contested subject right now. The pluri-lateral treaty 
>> 'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act', currently being negotiated has been 
>> in the eye of the storm, both vis a vis local constituencies in the 
>> countries which are a part of the negotiation, and developing 
>> countries who fear that such treaties negotiated without their 
>> participation may become the default global institutional framework, 
>> including through bilateral FTAs .
>>
>> Apart from IP issues, trans-border enforcement on and through the 
>> Internet also has implications for FoE and cultural rights regimes 
>> (For instance the recent UNECSO treaty on cultural goods).
>>
>> The proposed workshop will address the above issues, specifically 
>> employing the lenses of rights (right to knowledge, FoE, cultural 
>> rights etc) and democracy (right to self determination and political 
>> participation).
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100415/3a4b731e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Apr 15 09:54:55 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:54:55 -0300
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <w2jf65fb55e1004140759yfad04300xbe0d62294c8f1363@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> 	<m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net> <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca> <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BBB4947.8070800@cafonso.ca> <r2gf65fb55e1004132147ra8f20004gd0c96a4ead80269@mail.gmail.com> 	<4BC5AA84.2050604@cafonso.ca> <w2jf65fb55e1004140759yfad04300xbe0d62294c8f1363@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC71AAF.60803@cafonso.ca>


McTim wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>> Does NIC.br actually sub-allocate it's own allocations or just
>>> evaluate LIR applications and pass them on to LACNIC? Can LIRs in BR
>>> go to LACNIC directly or is that not allowed under Brazilian law?
>> Like Japan and Mexico, Brazil has a centralized service for IP
>> distribution. It is not Brazilian law, it is a CGI.br policy. The
>> Brazilian decree just delegates to CGI.br the task of managing IP
>> numbers and the .br ccTLD. How IP numbers are distributed is not really
>> relevant to our specific discussion here.
> 
> 
> I think it is.
> 
> Can you answer the questions please? am quite curious!

It is not (in any case the answer is trivial and you know it).

> <snip>
>>> And where does the money come from if not from leasing Internet
>>> resources to (mostly) commercial entities?
>> The "little" difference is that there are no business intermediaries in
>> the transaction seeking to make the most money out of it.
> 
> Why then can I go to http://www.101domain.com/country_domain.htm and
> get 2nd level .br names?

Please do it! I want to see the result.

frt rgds

--c.a.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Apr 15 10:05:05 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:05:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>

Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
"technical and academic" community.

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

Ginger Paque wrote:
> FYI:
> 
> Breakdown of IGF participants:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics 
> 
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Apr 15 10:21:58 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:21:58 +0900
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]>

Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. Has 
been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants represented 
35% of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)

Adam


>Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>"technical and academic" community.
>
>[]s fraternos
>
>--c.a.
>
>Ginger Paque wrote:
>>  FYI:
>>
>>  Breakdown of IGF participants:
>  > 
>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>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
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 10:50:00 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:50:00 +0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <z2wf65fb55e1004150750n6c05211fjea707d4adc57322e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
> "technical and academic" community.

Indeed, it might be instructive for example to find out how many form
NIC.br listed themselves as such...CGI.br as well.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 10:54:27 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:24:27 -0430
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca> <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <4BC728A3.6090805@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100415/70b7971c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Apr 15 11:03:05 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:03:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca> <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <4BC72AA9.2030000@cafonso.ca>

Low but of high quality! :)

Seriously, if Adam's concern is civil society participation, to go
deeper into the reasons one needs more information on who exactly have
been the participants per sector and region. Maybe this is available
(the full roster, with the designation of each by interest group and
region).  Is the percentage of a region heavily biased by government and
business, for example? LA&C could have a large percentage of government
delegates, Asia of business and so on... is this data available?

Southern civil society is constrained by resources and by the lack of
interest in the IGF. Only now some civil society sectors are perceiving
the importance of following IG issues, and maybe this is the case in all
regions. The latest South SSIG had a significant participation of ngo
students who had never before considered IG as relevant -- and their
reaction after the course was very positive.

Interesting to note that the World Social Forum, as an example of
massive worldwide mobilization of ngos and social movements, mostly
ignores the issue or treats it as fringe.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Adam Peake wrote:
> Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. Has
> been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants represented 35%
> of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>> "technical and academic" community.
>>
>> []s fraternos
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>  FYI:
>>>
>>>  Breakdown of IGF participants:
>>  >
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Apr 15 11:04:02 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:04:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <z2wf65fb55e1004150750n6c05211fjea707d4adc57322e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca> <z2wf65fb55e1004150750n6c05211fjea707d4adc57322e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC72AE2.4020409@cafonso.ca>

Uh-oh, you seem to be locked on the issue... :)

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>> "technical and academic" community.
> 
> Indeed, it might be instructive for example to find out how many form
> NIC.br listed themselves as such...CGI.br as well.
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 11:47:20 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:47:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <v2wfa468ac01004150847p2530fdf0n8c3fdbcd55a7575e@mail.gmail.com>

Would there be any way of generating more precise information? I'm thinking
particularly of the "multiple hats" (diversity of interests and
"attachments") phenomenon, especially as it relates to the definition of
"civil society" towards which we seem to be working.
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 15 April 2010 10:05, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
> "technical and academic" community.
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
> > FYI:
> >
> > Breakdown of IGF participants:
> >
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100415/5edc0c8a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 11:57:04 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:57:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <v2wfa468ac01004150847p2530fdf0n8c3fdbcd55a7575e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca> 
	<v2wfa468ac01004150847p2530fdf0n8c3fdbcd55a7575e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <i2lfa468ac01004150857ma714ef0fm6f325e20e2edd90a@mail.gmail.com>

And also - perhaps we need to sub-divide LAC, or better still, endorse it as
a whole.
I belong to the "silent" C, which, at the same time as being counted with
Latin America in this forum is rent asunder and fragmented (confusingly) by
ICANN.
Deirdre

On 15 April 2010 11:47, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Would there be any way of generating more precise information? I'm thinking
> particularly of the "multiple hats" (diversity of interests and
> "attachments") phenomenon, especially as it relates to the definition of
> "civil society" towards which we seem to be working.
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 15 April 2010 10:05, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>> "technical and academic" community.
>>
>> []s fraternos
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> > FYI:
>> >
>> > Breakdown of IGF participants:
>> >
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100415/bc6f528a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Apr 15 13:00:29 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:00:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <RRFVfhFtY0xLFAts@perry.co.uk>

In message <4BC71D11.6070407 at cafonso.ca>, at 11:05:05 on Thu, 15 Apr 
2010, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> writes
>I am particularly curious about the relatively large participation of 
>the "technical and academic" community.

Organisations are listed at the end here:

http://info.intgovforum.org/PLPSharm.php

And I expect the contingents from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, ccTLD operators, 
Root Server Operators, IXPs, etc can be found with little difficulty.

Then there's 15 from Diplo (I assume they are 'academic' rather than 
'Civil Society?), 28 people from "University of $foo") and so on...
-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Apr 15 13:41:10 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:41:10 +0900
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC728A3.6090805@gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
 <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]> <4BC728A3.6090805@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240879c7ecf2815c13@[192.168.1.160]>

>Yes, unfortunately, LAC continues to be the most under-represented 
>region. Since our problems are not perceived as being as "critical" 
>as Africa, we tend to be under-funded from outside sources, while 
>our governments do not/cannot give it the priority we would like to 
>see. It is a dilemma that should be addressed specifically.



What might be helpful is more detailed information, a way to get that 
would be to redesign the registration form so the information can be 
sorted as Carlos, Deirdre suggest. A lot of information collected but 
not in a way that is as useful as it might be. Would some of our MAG 
members be willing to take this on.

I doubt we'd ever get good information about who was/wasn't funded to 
attend.  Canada has give quite large amount (for I think all IGFs to 
date, and with not a lot of public acknowledgement -- IGC might make 
a comment about that sometime) that's been administered by the ITU, 
but there's not been a breakdown of who (stakeholder/region) received 
it.  My guess is there must have been more funding, but likely in 
smaller parcels so even more difficult to understand.

Adam



>Now THIS is a topic for an IGF workshop. Any takers?
>
>Carlos Afonso: my information is that stakeholder groups are 
>self-defined as taken from the registration forms.
>
>Best,
>Ginger
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. 
>>Has been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants 
>>represented 35% of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>>Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>>>of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>>>particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>>>"technical and academic" community.
>>>
>>>[]s fraternos
>>>
>>>--c.a.
>>>
>>>Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>>  FYI:
>>>>
>>>>  Breakdown of IGF participants:
>>>>
>>>  > 
>>><http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Carlos A. Afonso
>>>CGI.br (<http://www.cgi.br>www.cgi.br)
>>>Nupef (<http://www.nupef.org.br>www.nupef.org.br)
>>>====================================
>>>new/nuevo/novo e-mail: <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>ca at cafonso.ca
>>>====================================
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> 
>>><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>> 
>>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>Translate this email: 
>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> 
>><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>> 
>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>Translate this email: 
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From vanda at uol.com.br  Thu Apr 15 14:54:00 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:54:00 -0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <p06240879c7ecf2815c13@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca> <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]> <4BC728A3.6090805@gmail.com> <p06240879c7ecf2815c13@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <4bc760c84f4af_321a2afe66c187@weasel11.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100415/36833323/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Apr 16 00:38:54 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:08:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnat?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ional_enforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=96_Issues_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?of_rights_and_democracy?=
In-Reply-To: <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net> <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4BC7E9DE.9090606@itforchange.net>

A recent article on ACTA 'WIPO, WTO Requested To Advise On 
Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty' would be useful to refer to. see 
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/15/european-parliamentarians-call-on-wipo-wto-for-technical-advice-on-acta/ 
.

Also see a letter by some EU parliamentarians to WIPO on ACTA at 
http://www.erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/WIPO-letter-from-Greens-EFA.html 


It is important to note that ACTA also envisages a new institution of IP 
enforcement, including over and through the Internet, , whose 
implications for IG is something worth pondering upon.

Parminder


Parminder wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> Will first deal with the 'quibble' , because it sets up the rest of my 
> argument.
>
> >> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm 
> or order. (Parminder)
>
> > Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing. 
> (Bill)
>
> 'Or' here is not used to suggest same-ness, but to mean 'whichever way 
> one may be inclined to take it'. Information and communication (I & C) 
> paradigm would  a more conservative, perhaps functionalist, way to 
> seeing it, and 'I & C order' a more political way, perhaps even 
> suggesting power imbalances, dominations etc.
>
> The suggested tittle of the workshop 'Transnational (or trans-border) 
> enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and 
> democracy' deliberately  carries the  term  'order'.
>
> What is suggested is not so much one-off enforcements (though that 
> issues is also implicated) but an overall enforcement of a new 'I and 
> C' order through ACTA like globally non-democratic treaties which 
> would of course either  become the default on which big companies will 
> provide or withdraw service (private enforcements) or/ and its 
> provisions will be more or less forced upon less powerful countries 
> through bilateral FTAs.
>
> Also to note that officials associated with FTA have often said this 
> is strictly about 'enforcement' and not new IP regimes, but many in 
> the civil society and some others think it is a new IP regime with 
> clear global aspirations and implications.
>
> (The main term used in the workshop name is 'transnational 
> enforcement' and 'trans-border enforcement' is included as one part 
> within it).
>
> It is significant to see that on the Internet 'borders' have a very 
> different meanings, and trans-border enforcements thus take very 
> different dimensions. Would cutting off services and connectivity for 
> IP violation also operate at and through global interconnection points 
> and/or through recognising IP address of some countries? Some such 
> things already happen.
>
> We would also like to include trade embargo issues on the Internet - 
> like denial of many services by US based companies to countries like 
> Iran and Syria, and well, also, Pakistan ( e-payment services for 
> instance). In fact, such trade embargo issues are mentioned in the 
> Vilnius program document.
>
> >After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing 
> difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way >in 
> multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and 
> costs of building an architecture through >unilateral imposition and 
> bilateral FTAs...
>
> While we should certainly compare  WIPO  and ACTA  settings, and that 
> is a central intention of the proposed workshop, the above seem to me  
> to be letting off ACTA protagonists too easily, and simplisitically. 
> But you are of course entitled to your views, and these can be 
> discussed at the proposed workshop.
>
>  It is my view that, what problems they face at WIPO have largely to 
> do with the fact that these protagonists are in a hurry to construct a 
> maximalist global IP architecture to ensure that it becomes the basis 
> for their continued global domination.
>
> But please do suggest changes to the workshop note, as may others.
>
> Parminder
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Parminder could you help me to understand the desired focus?  To 
>> me, trans-border enforcement connotes a government or other actor 
>> based in one territorial unit unilaterally establishing/enforcing 
>> rules applicable in other units, i.e. extraterritoriality.  If memory 
>> serves this was the focus of the IGC workshop we were on in 
>> Hyderabad.  In contrast, ACTA and the UNESCO treaty (which will be 
>> hard to 'enforce') involve the negotiated harmonization of rules, 
>> with enforcement being an undertaking each government commits to 
>> within its jurisdiction.  These are rather different architectures, no?
>>
>> If the driving interest here is unilateral/extraterritorial, I'd 
>> suggest picking cases in which that model's been followed and 
>> comparing, generalizing.  If instead it is the substantive policy 
>> problem of IPR, maybe it'd be interesting to frame this as a 
>> comparative assessment of different policy architectures for that? 
>>  After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing 
>> difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way in 
>> multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies 
>> and costs of building an architecture through unilateral imposition 
>> and bilateral FTAs...Just a suggestion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> PS: Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing.
>>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>> Attempting a  quick first draft for the proposed workshop.
>>>
>>> Proposed workshop title : 'Transnational (or trans-border) 
>>> enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy'
>>>
>>> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm 
>>> or order. In this respect, many technical issues interact with 
>>> institutional frameworks around information and knowledge - like IP, 
>>> but also FoE, cultural rights etc - to develop a unique and 
>>> unprecedented global system of information and knowledge flows and 
>>> controls. Trans-border institutional mechanism become a key issue in 
>>> this regards - and trans-border enforcement of IP laws is a strongly 
>>> contested subject right now. The pluri-lateral treaty 
>>> 'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act', currently being negotiated has been 
>>> in the eye of the storm, both vis a vis local constituencies in the 
>>> countries which are a part of the negotiation, and developing 
>>> countries who fear that such treaties negotiated without their 
>>> participation may become the default global institutional framework, 
>>> including through bilateral FTAs .
>>>
>>> Apart from IP issues, trans-border enforcement on and through the 
>>> Internet also has implications for FoE and cultural rights regimes 
>>> (For instance the recent UNECSO treaty on cultural goods).
>>>
>>> The proposed workshop will address the above issues, specifically 
>>> employing the lenses of rights (right to knowledge, FoE, cultural 
>>> rights etc) and democracy (right to self determination and political 
>>> participation).
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100416/295d4cf0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Apr 16 02:50:01 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:50:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnat?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ional_enforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=96_Issues_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?of_rights_and_democracy?=
In-Reply-To: <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net> <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <10879838-1BA7-49EB-9135-1D9D97D8F505@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Parminder

On Apr 15, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Parminder wrote:

> Hi Bill
> 
> Will first deal with the 'quibble' , because it sets up the rest of my argument. 
> 
> >> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm or order. (Parminder)
> 
> > Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing. (Bill)
> 
> 'Or' here is not used to suggest same-ness, but to mean 'whichever way one may be inclined to take it'. Information and communication (I & C) paradigm would  a more conservative, perhaps functionalist, way to seeing it, and 'I & C order' a more political way, perhaps even suggesting power imbalances, dominations etc. 

It seems you are equating "paradigm" with a particular intellectual/ideologicial orientation you don't like, rather than its standard meaning from philosophy of science, but whatever, as I said, it's a quibble.  With the submission deadline passed, we should focus on the main issue at hand.

> The suggested tittle of the workshop 'Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy' deliberately  carries the  term  'order'. 
> 
> What is suggested is not so much one-off enforcements (though that issues is also implicated) but an overall enforcement of a new 'I and C' order through ACTA like globally non-democratic treaties which would of course either  become the default on which big companies will provide or withdraw service (private enforcements) or/ and its provisions will be more or less forced upon less powerful countries through bilateral FTAs. 

Understood, just noting that 'overall' is overly aggregated and there are significant differences between unilateral extraterritorial and negotiated plurilateral/multilateral enforcement systems, which would actually be interesting to explore.  
> 
> Also to note that officials associated with FTA have often said this is strictly about 'enforcement' and not new IP regimes, but many in the civil society and some others think it is a new IP regime with clear global aspirations and implications. 

Based on what's been circulated one could certainly make the case.
> 
> (The main term used in the workshop name is 'transnational enforcement' and 'trans-border enforcement' is included as one part within it).
> 
> It is significant to see that on the Internet 'borders' have a very different meanings, and trans-border enforcements thus take very different dimensions. Would cutting off services and connectivity for IP violation also operate at and through global interconnection points and/or through recognising IP address of some countries? Some such things already happen.
> 
> We would also like to include trade embargo issues on the Internet - like denial of many services by US based companies to countries like Iran and Syria, and well, also, Pakistan ( e-payment services for instance). In fact, such trade embargo issues are mentioned in the Vilnius program document. 

Don't want you to think I'm a terminological stickler, but an embargo is a governmental measure, different from a company's decision not to operate in a given national market.
> 
> >After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way >in multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and costs of building an architecture through >unilateral imposition and bilateral FTAs...
> 
> While we should certainly compare  WIPO  and ACTA  settings, and that is a central intention of the proposed workshop, the above seem to me  to be letting off ACTA protagonists too easily, and simplisitically. But you are of course entitled to your views, and these can be discussed at the proposed workshop. 

I'm not letting them off easily, I'm of course opposed to ACTA and think it's atrocious, I'm just saying forum shopping was definitely a key part of the calculus.  If the proponents thought they could get what they wanted on a broad based multilateral scale, that's what they'd be trying to do.
> 
>  It is my view that, what problems they face at WIPO have largely to do with the fact that these protagonists are in a hurry to construct a maximalist global IP architecture to ensure that it becomes the basis for their continued global domination.
> 
> But please do suggest changes to the workshop note, as may others. 

Just trying to help, but I can't draft as I'm not sure which is the guiding focus, trans-border enforcement as an architecture generally, trans-border vs other architectures, IPR, etc.  If you/others think the distinctions I'm drawing don't matter ok let's leave it as is and see if we can get quick consensus on a submission.

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> 
> William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Parminder could you help me to understand the desired focus?  To me, trans-border enforcement connotes a government or other actor based in one territorial unit unilaterally establishing/enforcing rules applicable in other units, i.e. extraterritoriality.  If memory serves this was the focus of the IGC workshop we were on in Hyderabad.  In contrast, ACTA and the UNESCO treaty (which will be hard to 'enforce') involve the negotiated harmonization of rules, with enforcement being an undertaking each government commits to within its jurisdiction.  These are rather different architectures, no?
>> 
>> If the driving interest here is unilateral/extraterritorial, I'd suggest picking cases in which that model's been followed and comparing, generalizing.  If instead it is the substantive policy problem of IPR, maybe it'd be interesting to frame this as a comparative assessment of different policy architectures for that?  After all, ACTA is a plurilateral response to the increasing difficulties its protagonists have faced getting their way in multilateral settings like WIPO, and to the perceived inadequacies and costs of building an architecture through unilateral imposition and bilateral FTAs...Just a suggestion.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> PS: Small quibble, paradigms and social orders are not the same thing.
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Parminder wrote:
>> 
>>> Attempting a  quick first draft for the proposed workshop. 
>>> 
>>> Proposed workshop title : 'Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy'
>>> 
>>> Internet is shaping a new global information and knowledge paradigm or order. In this respect, many technical issues interact with institutional frameworks around information and knowledge - like IP, but also FoE, cultural rights etc - to develop a unique and unprecedented global system of information and knowledge flows and controls. Trans-border institutional mechanism become a key issue in this regards - and trans-border enforcement of IP laws is a strongly contested subject right now. The pluri-lateral treaty 'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act', currently being negotiated has been in the eye of the storm, both vis a vis local constituencies in the countries which are a part of the negotiation, and developing countries who fear that such treaties negotiated without their participation may become the default global institutional framework, including through bilateral FTAs . 
>>> 
>>> Apart from IP issues, trans-border enforcement on and through the Internet also has implications for FoE and cultural rights regimes (For instance the recent UNECSO treaty on cultural goods). 
>>> 
>>> The proposed workshop will address the above issues, specifically employing the lenses of rights (right to knowledge, FoE, cultural rights etc) and democracy (right to self determination and political participation). 
>>> 
>> 

***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100416/a7adc6ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Apr 16 02:58:39 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:58:39 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnat?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ional_enforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=96_Issues_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?of_rights_and_democracy?=
In-Reply-To: <10879838-1BA7-49EB-9135-1D9D97D8F505@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> 
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 
	<p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> 
	<4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net> <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch> 
	<4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net> <10879838-1BA7-49EB-9135-1D9D97D8F505@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <h2jf65fb55e1004152358zb4fe8acbo7b51d5526437a09d@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
<snip>
>
>  It is my view that, what problems they face at WIPO have largely to do with
> the fact that these protagonists are in a hurry to construct a maximalist
> global IP architecture to ensure that it becomes the basis for their
> continued global domination.
>
> But please do suggest changes to the workshop note, as may others.
>
> Just trying to help, but I can't draft as I'm not sure which is the guiding
> focus, trans-border enforcement as an architecture generally, trans-border
> vs other architectures, IPR, etc.  If you/others think the distinctions I'm
> drawing don't matter

They do matter.

-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Apr 16 03:04:16 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:04:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D16@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <77BDD9D1-04C9-47C1-8229-C25FA9AD7195@ciroap.org> <33CB465C-ACF4-4F3C-BF8F-0F1A6CB757A7@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D816EE7-2559-4612-B7F7-457BDEEFCC05@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8CFD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<194634A2-56CE-4CD6-9FB7-51D0F78B9B23@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D0F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<DAC99BF9-218F-4EAA-9B16-3AFFA7D6D628@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015B4E8D16@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <91DDDEB5-B41F-4DF4-99D1-8BD8F446DA64@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Lee

On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> Tampere is great, good progress of past decade and all that.
> 
> But when you say:
> That's been international telecom law since the telegraph.  Governments get priority, emergencies get special priority.
> 
> Lee observes: 
> 
> Not on the best-effort Internet.

True dat, was just saying there's a precedent to build on, even if just metaphorically. 
> 
> Anyway, according to US law the Internet is an info service anyway and not telecoms; just reaffirmed by the appeals court remember. 
> 
> And oh yeah there's no universally accepted 'degree of emergency' priority override capability, just yet. (There is current IETF work underway on emergency communications, eg see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07; and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13)
> 
> Could be a governance issue, could be a good-enough work-around (as by nethope), could be a 'purely' technical fix coming soon from IETF.
> 
> Anyway, I just meant to highlight that nascent Internet governance issues could be

Hard to argue with could be.  So you're suggesting a forward looking assessment of options for a new arrangement rather than an assessment of what is at present governance.  Fine.

> embedded in seemingly technical areas such as emergency communications, even as -telecoms- treaties; and self-organized cs + private industry help in current emergencie, and IETF dpoes its thing .
> 
> So I'll tweak a paragraph tonight, not drastically revise or re-frame topic. (I promise Fouad!)

Did I miss this?
> 
> Lee
> 
> PS: And Bill I could tell you which - governance - institution got me into this way back when, but then I'd have to kill you. ; ) 

Then by all means keep it to yourself :-)

Cheers,

Bill
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:09 PM
> To: Lee W McKnight
> Cc: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> 
>> OK, I'll take the bait, emergency communications and net relief in Haiti and Somalia are obviously IG issues.
>> 
>> The Internet governance challenges of emergency communications has been studied for at least 15 years; I am unaware of a solution.
>> 
>> If you wish to set up an instant IP-based network and share services, networks and/or devices across institutional lines within a jurisdiction  - in the midst of a major disaster - in which the people doing that have no jurisdiction or governance authority - what is the (general, time and life-saving) solution?
> 
> Well, there's the The Tampere Convention  http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/tampere/index.html.
> 
> I guess I see this as governance of an periodically utilized application space (with most of the action being offline) rather than as governance of the Internet.
>> 
>> It's not -just - a governance issue; but without suitable governance I've seen one effort after another flop - for 15 years.
>> 
>> Further, some jurisdictions have - some - degree of prioritization for particular 'emergency' traffic, but that is particular to those jurisdictions, or networks controlled by individual entities.  (And a philosophical or governance question - do we abandon net neutrality in an emergency, or are all packets equal then too?
> 
> That's been international telecom law since the telegraph.  Governments get priority, emergencies get special priority.
>> 
>> Since you're forcing my hand, and know all my tricks of trying to dump work such as rewrites on others,
> 
> Uh, yeah...:-)
> 
>> I'll aim to get a tweaked paragraph to the list, by tomorrow. Perhaps highlighting emergency communications as an issue where revolutionary new (governance) approaches might be hoped for - unless someone can tell me this was all figured out by xyz working group or committee or....
> 
> Go for it if you like, emergency comm is an interesting field (had to get into this a bunch when I did the ICT for Peace report for Tunis) and I'd certainly attend a good workshop on the collective management thereof.  But proposals are nominally due tomorrow and as far as I can tell you are completely recasting this workshop, which people might want to discuss before saying this will be one of IGC's main contributions to IGF 2010...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:28 AM
>> To: Lee W McKnight
>> Cc: Governance List
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>> 
>> Hi Lee
>> 
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> 
>>> To defend the revolution (?) and back up Fouad,
>> 
>> ???  Nothing/nobody is being attacked and needs defending.  IGC wants to submit workshop proposals and it is the normal process to collectively tweak, clarify, and improve them, so I took a couple minutes to try and help boot up conversations about the three on the table.  In this context, I said I didn't see how use of the net for relief in Haiti and Somalia is an IG issue per se.  It's more an ICT4D/ICT4P application issue and is hence being discussed in bodies with that focus, inter alia GAID.
>> 
>>> I would ask Bil and others to explain how they know there will not be revolutionary IG ideas dreamt up to help change the developing world, and discussed at the workshop.
>> 
>> I didn't imply that I know any such thing...?  But I do know that the IGC has over the years expressed concern about the IGF focusing on Internet issues generally at the expense of IG issues specifically, and rightly so, methinks.
>>> 
>>> Maybe the paragraph description needs to be tweaked, but I would hate the IGC to abandon co-organizing the revolution just when it might be getting interesting : )
>> 
>> So then please tweak it in a manner that turns it into a well specified proposal about IG and we're good to go...
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Bill
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:12 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 1: Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World
>>> 
>>> On 13/04/2010, at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am having a hard time getting my head around this workshop.  It appears to be about interesting Internet applications rather than Internet governance, and the schematic description makes it hard to guess what would actually be discussed.  Could the proponents please elaborate?
>>> 
>>> Also Fouad, since a couple of people have expressed concern about the lack of an IG angle to this otherwise well-received workshop idea, would you consider proposing it to the IGF without the IGC listed as a workshop organiser?  Just a question.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Project Coordinator
>>> Consumers International
>>> Kuala Lumpur 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
>>> CI is 50
>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>>> 
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> 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
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

***********************************************************
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Apr 16 08:04:59 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:34:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reposting_Workshop_3:_Transnat?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ional_enforcement_of_a_new_information_order_=96_Issues_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?of_rights_and_democracy?=
In-Reply-To: <10879838-1BA7-49EB-9135-1D9D97D8F505@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net> <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net> <10879838-1BA7-49EB-9135-1D9D97D8F505@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4BC8526B.3090100@itforchange.net>



William Drake wrote:
>>
>>
>> We would also like to include trade embargo issues on the Internet - 
>> like denial of many services by US based companies to countries like 
>> Iran and Syria, and well, also, Pakistan ( e-payment services for 
>> instance). In fact, such trade embargo issues are mentioned in the 
>> Vilnius program document.
>
> Don't want you to think I'm a terminological stickler, but an embargo 
> is a governmental measure, different from a company's decision not to 
> operate in a given national market.
>
You of course know that Google, Microsoft and many other companies do 
not extend some of their digital services to countries like Iran, Syria 
etc because of US gov orders. So I do mean trade embargo in its meaning 
of a governmental measure. As for non-availability of paypal in Pakistan 
I suspect (just suspect) there may also be some US gov role here but I 
am not so sure. Fouad who is leading a campaign on this can tell more.

Parminder



> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100416/73c0c061/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Fri Apr 16 08:09:22 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:09:22 -0300
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <z2wf65fb55e1004150750n6c05211fjea707d4adc57322e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca> <z2wf65fb55e1004150750n6c05211fjea707d4adc57322e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC85372.2040304@cafonso.ca>

Uh-oh, you seem to be locked on the issue... :)

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>> "technical and academic" community.
> 
> Indeed, it might be instructive for example to find out how many form
> NIC.br listed themselves as such...CGI.br as well.
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jogray at gmail.com  Sat Apr 17 11:05:00 2010
From: jogray at gmail.com (Joey Gray)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:05:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <g2xfa468ac01004090328m2dfbf42chb36078b0df6a6a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk> <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>
	 <v2n83b95841004081919he65ab6d8gff6af84e73523927@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g2xfa468ac01004090328m2dfbf42chb36078b0df6a6a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <t2p76bcc9191004170805x38e2f39cve92e378f6f044090@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings All, Semi-related (by contrast), here is the story of another
Caribbean island's  generations of dependence, hunger, and independence --
Cuba:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuipXzxPFY   I just learned about
Kitchen Gardeners, which looks like a cool resource
http://kitchengardeners.org/ Joey

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I have been following this discussion with interest, particularly as I
> belong to Saint Lucia, one of the banana producing countries of the Windward
> Islands in the Caribbean.
> This morning I read this article
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8610427.stm which may interest some of
> you. It also deals with the protection of local agriculture, in this case in
> some African countries, and in this case using intellectual property rights,
> specifically patents.
> Can someone advise me please - Ginger?? - should I copy in the text of the
> article or is the URL sufficient?
> Deirdre
>
> On 8 April 2010 22:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jeanette,
>>
>> Your practical question reminds of something I may have read somewhere
>> but can't for the life of me remember, it's about how consumers in the
>> West post Copenhagen discussions are into buying green produce and
>> chances are if they are consuming something that took so long to get
>> to their country, it would have have not been environmentally
>> efficient and consumers would soon rather purchase commodity from
>> neighbouring region.
>>
>> I am reminded of bottled water how I watched a documentary (rerun)
>> where it said that it takes 8 litres of water to make one bottled
>> water etc and how people should just use filters and drink tap water.
>>
>> Where do we draw the line and how do we trade efficiently and be
>> mindful of not trampling on others just because we are giants and we
>> can.
>>
>> I have chillie growing in my yard in Suva, Fiji Islands and would love
>> to send you some but quarrantine probably won't allow it.  In Fiji,
>> people also dry chillies to preserve them.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sala
>> On 4/6/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just
>> now,
>> >> I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco,
>> >> expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking
>> >> mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do -
>> not
>> >> buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop),
>> >
>> > You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without
>> > losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by
>> > putting them under hot water.
>> >
>> > and who
>> >> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan
>> >> consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces,
>> taking
>> >> with it the wholesale price.
>> >
>> > Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an
>> > either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce
>> > and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding long
>> > distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or
>> > organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly
>> > also one.
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> P.O.Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji Islands
>>
>> Cell: +679 9982851
>> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>>
>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100417/87844890/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Apr 17 11:32:05 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:32:05 +0900
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
In-Reply-To: <4BC8526B.3090100@itforchange.net>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org>
 <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160>
 <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com>
 <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org>
 <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net>
 <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net>
 <10879838-1BA7-49EB-9135-1D9D97D8F505@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4BC8526B.3090100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <p06240807c7ef809e7765@[192.168.1.2]>

>William Drake wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>We would also like to include trade embargo issues on the Internet 
>>>- like denial of many services by US based companies to countries 
>>>like Iran and Syria, and well, also, Pakistan ( e-payment services 
>>>for instance). In fact, such trade embargo issues are mentioned in 
>>>the Vilnius program document.
>>>
>>
>>Don't want you to think I'm a terminological stickler, but an 
>>embargo is a governmental measure, different from a company's 
>>decision not to operate in a given national market.
>>
>>
>You of course know that Google, Microsoft and many other companies 
>do not extend some of their digital services to countries like Iran, 
>Syria etc because of US gov orders. So I do mean trade embargo in 
>its meaning of a governmental measure. As for non-availability of 
>paypal in Pakistan I suspect (just suspect) there may also be some 
>US gov role here but I am not so sure. Fouad who is leading a 
>campaign on this can tell more.


<https://www.paypal.com/worldwide/>  (I've not thought about which 
countries are missing.)  Concerns for terrorism, or banking systems, 
Internet security, could be any or all those reasons and more. But of 
course there are countries that the US bans trade with, but relevant 
to Internet policy it does allow their ccTLDs to operate in the root, 
participate in ICANN.

Perhaps related, the U.S. often uses free trade agreements to require 
other nations to adopt U.S. IP laws, for example digital millennium 
copyright act, that a countries ccTLD adopt the UDRP and I think 
WHOIS.

Anyway, I think this is a legitimate issue (though have some doubts 
about the paypal example.) When the Geneva WSIS documents were being 
negotiated Cuba tried, unsuccessfully, to get this paragraph in:

"56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be 
secured in accordance with international law, bearing in mind that 
some countries are affected by unilateral measures which are not 
compatible with it and which create obstacles for international 
trade."

Adam




>Parminder
>
>
>>***********************************************************
>>William J. Drake
>>Senior Associate
>>Centre for International Governance
>>Graduate Institute of International and
>>Development Studies
>>Geneva, Switzerland
>><mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>><http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>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
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Apr 17 13:13:49 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c7ef809e7765@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <668231.24049.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Adam,
 
I think you are very right to center some focus on this. It seems counter-productive the way the global megacorps kind of incestuously go along with US embargo notions. They really are not all that compulsory but more of a go along to get along deal.
 
I note today that AP is throwing out there the Iranian notion that Nukes are terrorist in nature.  The more I dislike the notion and critically approach it, the more I see it's legitimacy.
 
So we now have in our lexicon the potable idea of "nuking" something. The concept in a twisted way applies to embargo's. "just nuke their communication and commerce capabilities and you destroy any chance at growth".  What after all is an indiscriminate use of the annihilation of innocents but terrorism?

--- On Sat, 4/17/10, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:


From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010, 3:32 PM


> William Drake wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We would also like to include trade embargo issues on the Internet - like denial of many services by US based companies to countries like Iran and Syria, and well, also, Pakistan ( e-payment services for instance). In fact, such trade embargo issues are mentioned in the Vilnius program document.
>>> 
>> 
>> Don't want you to think I'm a terminological stickler, but an embargo is a governmental measure, different from a company's decision not to operate in a given national market.
>> 
>> 
> You of course know that Google, Microsoft and many other companies do not extend some of their digital services to countries like Iran, Syria etc because of US gov orders. So I do mean trade embargo in its meaning of a governmental measure. As for non-availability of paypal in Pakistan I suspect (just suspect) there may also be some US gov role here but I am not so sure. Fouad who is leading a campaign on this can tell more.


<https://www.paypal.com/worldwide/>  (I've not thought about which countries are missing.)  Concerns for terrorism, or banking systems, Internet security, could be any or all those reasons and more. But of course there are countries that the US bans trade with, but relevant to Internet policy it does allow their ccTLDs to operate in the root, participate in ICANN.

Perhaps related, the U.S. often uses free trade agreements to require other nations to adopt U.S. IP laws, for example digital millennium copyright act, that a countries ccTLD adopt the UDRP and I think WHOIS.

Anyway, I think this is a legitimate issue (though have some doubts about the paypal example.) When the Geneva WSIS documents were being negotiated Cuba tried, unsuccessfully, to get this paragraph in:

"56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be secured in accordance with international law, bearing in mind that some countries are affected by unilateral measures which are not compatible with it and which create obstacles for international trade."

Adam




> Parminder
> 
> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100417/f54626cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Apr 17 13:29:35 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4bc760c84f4af_321a2afe66c187@weasel11.tmail>
Message-ID: <144839.66012.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Vanda,
 
I am often puzzled by the need of geographics in the Internet. I have always like the term "where East meets North". (do not dwell too long it is a mindbender)
If we keep using the anthropologic notions or territorialism and nationalism when addressing Internet Issues are we not chaining ourselves to boundaries that are more akin to myth and conquerors than International Freedom of Communication.
By geopolitical breakdowns of participation we are allowing the status quoians to define the issues. I dare say that my values and issues are more in line with farmers in Sudan and shopkeepers in Asia than an American lawyer sum President from Chicago.  MLK said that one day we shall judge not by the color of skin or race oR creed but by the character of a man.  Why should we come so far and then regress and begin to judge a man by the accident of geography of birth?

--- On Thu, 4/15/10, vanda <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:


From: vanda <vanda at uol.com.br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 6:54 PM



Both are right Adam & Carlos . LA&C area are not too poor to get the attention of the world. We really need to have more information as well as have a clear position about IGF related to ICANN - 
there is or not sponsorship from ICANN for some members?, then who? why? when make suggestions? who will analyze the suggestions and define who will be there.
we are member of one community, we need to go to IGF is some way representing this community. 
or work to find another sponsorship for our group, independent of ICANN.
kisses
vanda  



Em 15/04/2010 14:41, Adam Peake < ajp at glocom.ac.jp > escreveu:
>Yes, unfortunately, LAC continues to be the most under-represented 
>region. Since our problems are not perceived as being as "critical" 
>as Africa, we tend to be under-funded from outside sources, while 
>our governments do not/cannot give it the priority we would like to 
>see. It is a dilemma that should be addressed specifically.



What might be helpful is more detailed information, a way to get that 
would be to redesign the registration form so the information can be 
sorted as Carlos, Deirdre suggest. A lot of information collected but 
not in a way that is as useful as it might be. Would some of our MAG 
members be willing to take this on.

I doubt we'd ever get good information about who was/wasn't funded to 
attend. Canada has give quite large amount (for I think all IGFs to 
date, and with not a lot of public acknowledgement -- IGC might make 
a comment about that sometime) that's been administered by the ITU, 
but there's not been a breakdown of who (stakeholder/region) received 
it. My guess is there must have been more funding, but likely in 
smaller parcels so even more difficult to understand.

Adam



>Now THIS is a topic for an IGF workshop. Any takers?
>
>Carlos Afonso: my information is that stakeholder groups are 
>self-defined as taken from the registration forms.
>
>Best,
>Ginger
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. 
>>Has been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants 
>>represented 35% of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)
> >
>>Adam
>>
>>>Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>>>of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>>>particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>>>"technical and academic" community.
>>>
>>>[]s fraternos
>>>
>>>--c.a.
>>>
>>>Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI:
>>>>
>>>> Breakdown of IGF participants:
>>>>
>>> > 
>>>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>Translate this email: 
>>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> 
>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>> 
>>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>Translate this email: 
>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100417/4ce27c0a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Apr 17 13:53:19 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC72AA9.2030000@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <244619.45842.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I think this is noble but old school logic. Our values and more's are no longer dictated by the region or sector we belong to. Cliche's and moribund stereotypes no longer fuel our logic. Those with the inclination to participate here are not restricted by location or social order or origin. Environmentalists are techies, soldiers are scientists, men care for babies, women orbit in space, Bangladeshis are agro business folks, Japanese are Christian and Muslims drink spirits. Some from England like American football, and in Siberia there are Africans, Eskimos enjoy fruits and green salads and Malaysians eat Caribou.
 
But counting sectors and regions help politicians and census takers, guide marketers and sales. Even recognizing the georegional differences is a stage for bigotry, for classification and discrimination. How can we have rules that protect gender and age and disability but embrace segregation based on job and the dirt we stand on?

--- On Thu, 4/15/10, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:


From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 3:03 PM


Low but of high quality! :)

Seriously, if Adam's concern is civil society participation, to go
deeper into the reasons one needs more information on who exactly have
been the participants per sector and region. Maybe this is available
(the full roster, with the designation of each by interest group and
region).  Is the percentage of a region heavily biased by government and
business, for example? LA&C could have a large percentage of government
delegates, Asia of business and so on... is this data available?

Southern civil society is constrained by resources and by the lack of
interest in the IGF. Only now some civil society sectors are perceiving
the importance of following IG issues, and maybe this is the case in all
regions. The latest South SSIG had a significant participation of ngo
students who had never before considered IG as relevant -- and their
reaction after the course was very positive.

Interesting to note that the World Social Forum, as an example of
massive worldwide mobilization of ngos and social movements, mostly
ignores the issue or treats it as fringe.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Adam Peake wrote:
> Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. Has
> been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants represented 35%
> of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>> "technical and academic" community.
>>
>> []s fraternos
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>  FYI:
>>>
>>>  Breakdown of IGF participants:
>>  >
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100417/fcee14d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 18 00:49:33 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:19:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c7ef809e7765@[192.168.1.2]>
References: <CAB5B6D7-4552-4590-B2CE-5A90E539D663@ciroap.org> <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <p06240810c7cfb265e013@192.168.1.160> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> <837896BD-9726-49EA-98D9-9653EF82BD7E@ciroap.org> <4BB9E0F3.8020102@itforchange.net> <4BC1CE1A.5040902@itforchange.net> <8ECA140F-D309-47CC-BE4F-AB00B0612F69@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BC6DD9D.2060800@itforchange.net> <10879838-1BA7-49EB-9135-1D9D97D8F505@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BC8526B.3090100@itforchange.net> <p06240807c7ef809e7765@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID: <4BCA8F5D.8060101@itforchange.net>



Adam Peake wrote:
> When the Geneva WSIS documents were being negotiated Cuba tried, 
> unsuccessfully, to get this paragraph in:
>
> "56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be 
> secured in accordance with international law, bearing in mind that 
> some countries are affected by unilateral measures which are not 
> compatible with it and which create obstacles for international trade."
>
> Adam
>
The Geneva Declaration of Principle does say, in para 46

    In building the Information Society, States are strongly urged to
    take steps with a view to the avoidance of, and refrain from, any
    unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the
    Charter of the United Nations that impedes the full achievement of
    economic and social development by the population of the affected
    countries, and that hinders the well-being of their population.



Parminder


>
>
>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> Senior Associate
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>> Development Studies
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
>>>
>>> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100418/a9536de4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Apr 18 11:15:34 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
In-Reply-To: <4BCA8F5D.8060101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <324035.60770.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I seldom write in derision of my country. But this evil notion of embargo of information and knowledge is not acceptable. Article 19 here is good and true and holds to almost all Americans belief http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/  Just a mere 6 months ago our SOS Hillary condemned in country censorship and denial of access in multiple countries yet she stands by and supports denying whole countries the same unfettered right to information. 
 
Both of the statements below fall far short of what is needed.  Diplomacy between nations is great but when political agendas thwart basic human rights that are universal they must be condemned with the strongest unambiguous language. This is not a time or situation to coddle and appease and work out. If this IGF cannot stand for this basic and well established notion then we must look inside ourselves and check the tenants or our own reasons for participation. Perhaps here we can see the true distinction between those here from a deep abiding commitment and those here as part of a job.

--- On Sun, 4/18/10, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 4:49 AM




Adam Peake wrote: 
 When the Geneva WSIS documents were being negotiated Cuba tried, unsuccessfully, to get this paragraph in: 

"56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be secured in accordance with international law, bearing in mind that some countries are affected by unilateral measures which are not compatible with it and which create obstacles for international trade." 

Adam 

The Geneva Declaration of Principle does say, in para 46


In building the Information Society, States are strongly urged to take steps with a view to the avoidance of, and refrain from, any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries, and that hinders the well-being of their population.


Parminder 







Parminder 



*********************************************************** 
William J. Drake 
Senior Associate 
Centre for International Governance 
Graduate Institute of International and 
Development Studies 
Geneva, Switzerland 
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>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 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 

____________________________________________________________ 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
    governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to: 
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see: 
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 


-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100418/202f479e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Apr 18 16:24:20 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:24:20 +1200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <t2p76bcc9191004170805x38e2f39cve92e378f6f044090@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk> <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>
	 <v2n83b95841004081919he65ab6d8gff6af84e73523927@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g2xfa468ac01004090328m2dfbf42chb36078b0df6a6a5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <t2p76bcc9191004170805x38e2f39cve92e378f6f044090@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h2o83b95841004181324h9817458cqfb1aa0b2cc4680d@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Joey. I enjoyed watching this clip. We also have food
security issues in Asia Pacific - with "rice shortages" and have to
deal with balancing food imports.


On 4/18/10, Joey Gray <jogray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings All, Semi-related (by contrast), here is the story of another
> Caribbean island's  generations of dependence, hunger, and independence --
> Cuba:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuipXzxPFY   I just learned about
> Kitchen Gardeners, which looks like a cool resource
> http://kitchengardeners.org/ Joey
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> I have been following this discussion with interest, particularly as I
>> belong to Saint Lucia, one of the banana producing countries of the
>> Windward
>> Islands in the Caribbean.
>> This morning I read this article
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8610427.stm which may interest some of
>> you. It also deals with the protection of local agriculture, in this case
>> in
>> some African countries, and in this case using intellectual property
>> rights,
>> specifically patents.
>> Can someone advise me please - Ginger?? - should I copy in the text of the
>> article or is the URL sufficient?
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 8 April 2010 22:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jeanette,
>>>
>>> Your practical question reminds of something I may have read somewhere
>>> but can't for the life of me remember, it's about how consumers in the
>>> West post Copenhagen discussions are into buying green produce and
>>> chances are if they are consuming something that took so long to get
>>> to their country, it would have have not been environmentally
>>> efficient and consumers would soon rather purchase commodity from
>>> neighbouring region.
>>>
>>> I am reminded of bottled water how I watched a documentary (rerun)
>>> where it said that it takes 8 litres of water to make one bottled
>>> water etc and how people should just use filters and drink tap water.
>>>
>>> Where do we draw the line and how do we trade efficiently and be
>>> mindful of not trampling on others just because we are giants and we
>>> can.
>>>
>>> I have chillie growing in my yard in Suva, Fiji Islands and would love
>>> to send you some but quarrantine probably won't allow it.  In Fiji,
>>> people also dry chillies to preserve them.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Sala
>>> On 4/6/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just
>>> now,
>>> >> I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco,
>>> >> expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking
>>> >> mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do -
>>> not
>>> >> buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop),
>>> >
>>> > You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without
>>> > losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by
>>> > putting them under hot water.
>>> >
>>> > and who
>>> >> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan
>>> >> consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces,
>>> taking
>>> >> with it the wholesale price.
>>> >
>>> > Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an
>>> > either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce
>>> > and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding long
>>> > distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or
>>> > organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly
>>> > also one.
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> P.O.Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji Islands
>>>
>>> Cell: +679 9982851
>>> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>>>
>>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Apr 18 16:28:22 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:28:22 +1200
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <244619.45842.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <4BC72AA9.2030000@cafonso.ca>
	 <244619.45842.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h2q83b95841004181328t73bf1891q95786a1fd027fa29@mail.gmail.com>

Mere Samisoni did some research on this debate, let me get her to respond.


Kind Regards

ST
On 4/18/10, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think this is noble but old school logic. Our values and more's are no
> longer dictated by the region or sector we belong to. Cliche's and moribund
> stereotypes no longer fuel our logic. Those with the inclination to
> participate here are not restricted by location or social order or origin.
> Environmentalists are techies, soldiers are scientists, men care for babies,
> women orbit in space, Bangladeshis are agro business folks, Japanese are
> Christian and Muslims drink spirits. Some from England like American
> football, and in Siberia there are Africans, Eskimos enjoy fruits and green
> salads and Malaysians eat Caribou.
>
> But counting sectors and regions help politicians and census takers, guide
> marketers and sales. Even recognizing the georegional differences is a stage
> for bigotry, for classification and discrimination. How can we have rules
> that protect gender and age and disability but embrace segregation based on
> job and the dirt we stand on?
>
> --- On Thu, 4/15/10, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>
> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 3:03 PM
>
>
> Low but of high quality! :)
>
> Seriously, if Adam's concern is civil society participation, to go
> deeper into the reasons one needs more information on who exactly have
> been the participants per sector and region. Maybe this is available
> (the full roster, with the designation of each by interest group and
> region).  Is the percentage of a region heavily biased by government and
> business, for example? LA&C could have a large percentage of government
> delegates, Asia of business and so on... is this data available?
>
> Southern civil society is constrained by resources and by the lack of
> interest in the IGF. Only now some civil society sectors are perceiving
> the importance of following IG issues, and maybe this is the case in all
> regions. The latest South SSIG had a significant participation of ngo
> students who had never before considered IG as relevant -- and their
> reaction after the course was very positive.
>
> Interesting to note that the World Social Forum, as an example of
> massive worldwide mobilization of ngos and social movements, mostly
> ignores the issue or treats it as fringe.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> Adam Peake wrote:
>> Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. Has
>> been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants represented 35%
>> of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>>> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>>> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>>> "technical and academic" community.
>>>
>>> []s fraternos
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>>  FYI:
>>>>
>>>>  Breakdown of IGF participants:
>>>  >
>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sun Apr 18 20:05:30 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:05:30 -0300
Subject: [governance] Project Universal subtitles
Message-ID: <y2rf7e605ab1004181705t2abced3amb09624bf65dda6d9@mail.gmail.com>

A very interesting project has been launched: Universal Subtitles (
http://blog.universalsubtitles.org/) Please advertise it and help to develop
this idea.
The project is supported by Mozilla Drumbeat (http://www.drumbeat.org/)

Subtitles and Captions for Every Video on the Web

*Here’s the problem:* web video is beginning to rival television, but there
isn’t a good open resource for subtitling. *Here’s our mission:* we’re
trying to make captioning, subtitling, and translating video publicly
accessible in a way that’s free and open, just like the Web.

*Our approach:*

   - Make a simple and ubiquitous way to request, create, and translate
   subtitles for any video
   - Work with others to define open protocols so that whenever subtitles
   for a video exist, any website or video player will be able to retrieve them
   - Create a community space for people who subtitle video, to encourage
   contributions and facilitate collaboration

*Tools we’re building*

*1) Subtitle Widget:* We’re developing an incredibly user friendly interface
for adding captions to almost any video on the web (without the hassle of
re-transcoding or re-uploading). We’ll be launching a demo very soon, but
here’s a sneak peek:
Subtitles and Captions for Every Video on the Web

*Here’s the problem:* web video is beginning to rival television, but there
isn’t a good open resource for subtitling. *Here’s our mission:* we’re
trying to make captioning, subtitling, and translating video publicly
accessible in a way that’s free and open, just like the Web.

*Our approach:*

   - Make a simple and ubiquitous way to request, create, and translate
   subtitles for any video
   - Work with others to define open protocols so that whenever subtitles
   for a video exist, any website or video player will be able to retrieve them
   - Create a community space for people who subtitle video, to encourage
   contributions and facilitate collaboration

*Tools we’re building*

*1) Subtitle Widget:* We’re developing an incredibly user friendly interface
for adding captions to almost any video on the web (without the hassle of
re-transcoding or re-uploading). We’ll be launching a demo very soon, but
here’s a sneak peek:

*2) Universal Subtitles Protocol:* A new open standard that will allow
clients such as Firefox extensions, desktop video players, websites, or
browsers to look up and download matching subtitles from a whitelist of
subtitle databases when they play video.

*3) Collaborative Subtitling Site: *An online community for collaboratively
subtitling and translating the world’s videos (like a Wikipedia for
subtitles).  The site will have special tools for versioning, incentives for
different types of collaboration, and all subtitles created here will be
available in any context via our open protocol.  The site will exist to
encourage dynamics like:

   - Formation of teams for subtitling a program, or a topic.
   - Tracking which subtitling or translation tasks are the most requested,
   and mobilizing volunteers.
   - Volunteers recruiting their friends for help transcribing or
   translating a video.
   - Splitting large tasks into smaller parts



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center of Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100418/7a71802e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nne75 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 19 05:34:37 2010
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Policy Training in Accra - May 13
 and 14.
In-Reply-To: <20100419075640.CE51490A3B@npogroups.org>
References: <20100419075640.CE51490A3B@npogroups.org>
Message-ID: <125131.43914.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Dear all

FOSSFA, in collaboration with Diplo will be holding a face to face Internet Governance Policy Training.
This is part of the pre-conference trainngs of the fourth African Conference on FOSS and the Digital Commons - IDLELO 4.

There are only 25 seats available, out of which half has already been taken.  The organisers are supporting accommodation costs for trainees and covering other costs for 4 days.

Kindly visit: http://idlelo.net/content/pre-conference-training-programme to register.
Then send application to acpinfo at diplomacy.edu

Best regards

 
Nnenna Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants
Information | Communications |  Technology and Events  | for Development
Rue des Jardins, Près de Ste Cecile | Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471
Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire (+225) | http://www.nnenna.org| nnenna at nnenna.org




________________________________
From: "governance-request at lists.cpsr.org" <governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 7:56:40 AM
Subject: governance Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2010 

governance Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2010


Table of contents:

1. Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement -- Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
2. Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
World -- "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
3. Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and -- "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
4. [governance] Project Universal subtitles -- Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>



********************************************************
BEGIN DIGEST:

- 1: --------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement

I seldom write in derision of my country. But this evil notion of embargo of
information and knowledge is not acceptable. Article 19 here is good and true
and holds to almost all Americans belief http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 
Just a mere 6 months ago our SOS Hillary condemned in country censorship and
denial of access in multiple countries yet she stands by and supports denying
whole countries the same unfettered right to information. 
 
Both of the statements below fall far short of what is needed.  Diplomacy
between nations is great but when political agendas thwart basic human rights
that are universal they must be condemned with the strongest unambiguous
language. This is not a time or situation to coddle and appease and work out.
If this IGF cannot stand for this basic and well established notion then we
must look inside ourselves and check the tenants or our own reasons for
participation. Perhaps here we can see the true distinction between those here
from a deep abiding commitment and those here as part of a job.

--- On Sun, 4/18/10, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 4:49 AM




Adam Peake wrote: 
 When the Geneva WSIS documents were being negotiated Cuba tried,
unsuccessfully, to get this paragraph in: 

"56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be secured in
accordance with international law, bearing in mind that some countries are
affected by unilateral measures which are not compatible with it and which
create obstacles for international trade." 

Adam 

The Geneva Declaration of Principle does say, in para 46


In building the Information Society, States are strongly urged to take steps
with a view to the avoidance of, and refrain from, any unilateral measure not
in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that
impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the
population of the affected countries, and that hinders the well-being of their
population.


Parminder 







Parminder 



*********************************************************** 
William J. Drake 
Senior Associate 
Centre for International Governance 
Graduate Institute of International and 
Development Studies 
Geneva, Switzerland 
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/dr
ake.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 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 

____________________________________________________________ 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
    governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to: 
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see: 
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 


-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


- 2: --------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:24:20 +1200
From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
World

** Warning: Message part originally used character set windows-1252
    Some characters may be lost or incorrect **

Thank you Joey. I enjoyed watching this clip. We also have food
security issues in Asia Pacific - with "rice shortages" and have to
deal with balancing food imports.


On 4/18/10, Joey Gray <jogray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings All, Semi-related (by contrast), here is the story of another
> Caribbean island's  generations of dependence, hunger, and independence --
> Cuba:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuipXzxPFY   I just learned about
> Kitchen Gardeners, which looks like a cool resource
> http://kitchengardeners.org/ Joey
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> I have been following this discussion with interest, particularly as I
>> belong to Saint Lucia, one of the banana producing countries of the
>> Windward
>> Islands in the Caribbean.
>> This morning I read this article
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8610427.stm which may interest some of
>> you. It also deals with the protection of local agriculture, in this case
>> in
>> some African countries, and in this case using intellectual property
>> rights,
>> specifically patents.
>> Can someone advise me please - Ginger?? - should I copy in the text of the
>> article or is the URL sufficient?
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 8 April 2010 22:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jeanette,
>>>
>>> Your practical question reminds of something I may have read somewhere
>>> but can't for the life of me remember, it's about how consumers in the
>>> West post Copenhagen discussions are into buying green produce and
>>> chances are if they are consuming something that took so long to get
>>> to their country, it would have have not been environmentally
>>> efficient and consumers would soon rather purchase commodity from
>>> neighbouring region.
>>>
>>> I am reminded of bottled water how I watched a documentary (rerun)
>>> where it said that it takes 8 litres of water to make one bottled
>>> water etc and how people should just use filters and drink tap water.
>>>
>>> Where do we draw the line and how do we trade efficiently and be
>>> mindful of not trampling on others just because we are giants and we
>>> can.
>>>
>>> I have chillie growing in my yard in Suva, Fiji Islands and would love
>>> to send you some but quarrantine probably won't allow it.  In Fiji,
>>> people also dry chillies to preserve them.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Sala
>>> On 4/6/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just
>>> now,
>>> >> I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost ?0.50) from Morocco,
>>> >> expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting looking
>>> >> mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do -
>>> not
>>> >> buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop),
>>> >
>>> > You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without
>>> > losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by
>>> > putting them under hot water.
>>> >
>>> > and who
>>> >> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan
>>> >> consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces,
>>> taking
>>> >> with it the wholesale price.
>>> >
>>> > Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an
>>> > either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce
>>> > and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding long
>>> > distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or
>>> > organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly
>>> > also one.
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> P.O.Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji Islands
>>>
>>> Cell: +679 9982851
>>> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>>>
>>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ?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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."


- 3: --------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:28:22 +1200
From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and

Mere Samisoni did some research on this debate, let me get her to respond.


Kind Regards

ST
On 4/18/10, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think this is noble but old school logic. Our values and more's are no
> longer dictated by the region or sector we belong to. Cliche's and moribund
> stereotypes no longer fuel our logic. Those with the inclination to
> participate here are not restricted by location or social order or origin.
> Environmentalists are techies, soldiers are scientists, men care for babies,
> women orbit in space, Bangladeshis are agro business folks, Japanese are
> Christian and Muslims drink spirits. Some from England like American
> football, and in Siberia there are Africans, Eskimos enjoy fruits and green
> salads and Malaysians eat Caribou.
>
> But counting sectors and regions help politicians and census takers, guide
> marketers and sales. Even recognizing the georegional differences is a stage
> for bigotry, for classification and discrimination. How can we have rules
> that protect gender and age and disability but embrace segregation based on
> job and the dirt we stand on?
>
> --- On Thu, 4/15/10, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>
> From: Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 3:03 PM
>
>
> Low but of high quality! :)
>
> Seriously, if Adam's concern is civil society participation, to go
> deeper into the reasons one needs more information on who exactly have
> been the participants per sector and region. Maybe this is available
> (the full roster, with the designation of each by interest group and
> region).  Is the percentage of a region heavily biased by government and
> business, for example? LA&C could have a large percentage of government
> delegates, Asia of business and so on... is this data available?
>
> Southern civil society is constrained by resources and by the lack of
> interest in the IGF. Only now some civil society sectors are perceiving
> the importance of following IG issues, and maybe this is the case in all
> regions. The latest South SSIG had a significant participation of ngo
> students who had never before considered IG as relevant -- and their
> reaction after the course was very positive.
>
> Interesting to note that the World Social Forum, as an example of
> massive worldwide mobilization of ngos and social movements, mostly
> ignores the issue or treats it as fringe.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> Adam Peake wrote:
>> Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. Has
>> been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants represented 35%
>> of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
>>> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
>>> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
>>> "technical and academic" community.
>>>
>>> []s fraternos
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>>  FYI:
>>>>
>>>>  Breakdown of IGF participants:
>>>  >
>>>
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-s
harm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."


- 4: --------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:05:30 -0300
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] Project Universal subtitles

** Warning: Message part originally used character set windows-1252
    Some characters may be lost or incorrect **

A very interesting project has been launched: Universal Subtitles (
http://blog.universalsubtitles.org/) Please advertise it and help to develop
this idea.
The project is supported by Mozilla Drumbeat (http://www.drumbeat.org/)

Subtitles and Captions for Every Video on the Web

*Here?s the problem:* web video is beginning to rival television, but there
isn?t a good open resource for subtitling. *Here?s our mission:* we?re
trying to make captioning, subtitling, and translating video publicly
accessible in a way that?s free and open, just like the Web.

*Our approach:*

   - Make a simple and ubiquitous way to request, create, and translate
   subtitles for any video
   - Work with others to define open protocols so that whenever subtitles
   for a video exist, any website or video player will be able to retrieve them
   - Create a community space for people who subtitle video, to encourage
   contributions and facilitate collaboration

*Tools we?re building*

*1) Subtitle Widget:* We?re developing an incredibly user friendly interface
for adding captions to almost any video on the web (without the hassle of
re-transcoding or re-uploading). We?ll be launching a demo very soon, but
here?s a sneak peek:
Subtitles and Captions for Every Video on the Web

*Here?s the problem:* web video is beginning to rival television, but there
isn?t a good open resource for subtitling. *Here?s our mission:* we?re
trying to make captioning, subtitling, and translating video publicly
accessible in a way that?s free and open, just like the Web.

*Our approach:*

   - Make a simple and ubiquitous way to request, create, and translate
   subtitles for any video
   - Work with others to define open protocols so that whenever subtitles
   for a video exist, any website or video player will be able to retrieve them
   - Create a community space for people who subtitle video, to encourage
   contributions and facilitate collaboration

*Tools we?re building*

*1) Subtitle Widget:* We?re developing an incredibly user friendly interface
for adding captions to almost any video on the web (without the hassle of
re-transcoding or re-uploading). We?ll be launching a demo very soon, but
here?s a sneak peek:

*2) Universal Subtitles Protocol:* A new open standard that will allow
clients such as Firefox extensions, desktop video players, websites, or
browsers to look up and download matching subtitles from a whitelist of
subtitle databases when they play video.

*3) Collaborative Subtitling Site: *An online community for collaboratively
subtitling and translating the world?s videos (like a Wikipedia for
subtitles).  The site will have special tools for versioning, incentives for
different types of collaboration, and all subtitles created here will be
available in any context via our open protocol.  The site will exist to
encourage dynamics like:

   - Formation of teams for subtitling a program, or a topic.
   - Tracking which subtitling or translation tasks are the most requested,
   and mobilizing volunteers.
   - Volunteers recruiting their friends for help transcribing or
   translating a video.
   - Splitting large tasks into smaller parts



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center of Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center of Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil



--------------------------------------------------------
End of governance Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2010

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100419/7de06943/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Apr 19 06:34:34 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:34:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] FW: UN Blasted for Sequestering NGOs and Media
Message-ID: <B8637ABD023745DB8D3E69566F6DB5F0@userPC>

This may be relevant.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG [mailto:moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG] 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 1:23 PM
To: PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG
Subject: UN Blasted for Sequestering NGOs and Media


UN Blasted for Sequestering NGOs and Media
by Thalif Deen
Inter-Press Service
April 16, 2010 
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51080

UNITED NATIONS - A major structural renovation of the
U.N. Secretariat is being used as a pretext to curb
media access to delegates and Security Council members,
and is also a veritable smokescreen to tighten
restrictions on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) accredited to the
world body, critics say. "It's absolutely scandalous," says Jim Paul,
executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, which provides
intense coverage of U.N. activities in its widely-accessed website.

The Capital Master Plan (CMP), a five-year U.N.
restructuring project costing about 1.9 billion dollars
with a 2013 deadline, is apparently the primary excuse
to restrict the physical movement of NGO representatives
in the U.N. building, he said.

"The United Nations appears to be getting progressively
more hostile to NGOs - and member states appear to be
behind this trend," Paul told IPS.

Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had a love-hate relationship with
NGOs, once described them as "indispensable partners of the United Nations"
and "the conscience of the world".

But his administration also had occasional battles with
NGOs whose presence in the U.N. building, particularly
during summit meetings and General Assembly sessions,
was restricted on security grounds.

But the current situation is the worst because "it is 10
times more difficult", complained Paul, who is a member
of a new 'NGO Working Group on U.N. Access'.

The NGO complaint follows a strong protest by the U.N. Correspondents'
Association (UNCA) which recently faulted the world body for new
restrictions imposed on press access to delegates and members of the
Security Council.

Asked for an update, U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters Friday: "I
think you should ask the President of the Security Council what the
arrangements (for press
access) are."

"It is not for me to second guess what the Security
Council is doing. I am not going to pre-judge," he
added.

Meanwhile, in a hard-hitting letter to Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon, the Working Group says that NGOs "are
amongst the closest partners of the United Nations -
sharing the vision and promoting the goals and ideals on
which the United Nations was established."

But "we (are) compelled to write to you at this time in
light of a number of obstacles restricting NGO access to
the United Nations at different levels."

"Some of the restrictions are structural and related to
the renovations, while others, of greater concern,
reflect the political mood prevalent today," the letter complains. "We are
particularly concerned that the temporary arrangements, as part of the
Capital Master Plan, are creating additional access problems and
significantly reducing space for NGO participation."

Currently, over 3,000 NGOs are recognised and provided "consultative status"
with the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

Additionally, over 2,000 NGOs are recognised and
accredited to the world body by the U.N.'s Department of
Public Information.

The new NGO Working Group, which is fighting for the
rights of NGOs, includes the Conference of NGOs (CONGO)
in Consultative Relationship with the U.N.,
International Service for Human Rights, World Federalist Movement -
Institute for Global Policy, Baha'i International Community and Global
Policy Forum.

The NGO letter also said: "It is widely acknowledged
that in today's increasingly interdependent world,
deliberation on issues of global concern - development, security and human
rights - requires a closer participation of NGOs than ever before."

"We therefore believe that it is imperative for the
United Nations to explore ways and means to expand and
render more meaningful the access of NGOs to the
Organisation, and its negotiation and decision-making processes," the letter
adds.

The Working Group has also asked the secretary-general
to assign an individual at a senior level within the
executive office to serve as a liaison to the NGO
community.

Under Annan, the Assistant Secretary-General for
External Relations Gillian Martin Sorensen was the
coordinator of NGOs.

In this role, Sorensen "played a significant role in
engaging with and assisting NGOs, by organising regular meetings to discuss
matters of concern," the letter adds.

In his response, Ban sent a letter pointing out that
despite careful planning, "significant challenges remain
from the current stage of the implementation of the
Capital Master Plan."

"Indeed, the situation is difficult, not only for NGOs
but also for member states and the Secretariat," he
wrote.

The secretary-general also said that he has directed all departments
concerned "to seek sound and coordinated solutions to providing access to as
many NGOs as possible, within the security and safety requirements."

Paul dismissed Ban's letter as an "empty, say-nothing" response.

Meanwhile, in a letter to the secretary-general and to
the president of the Security Council, UNCA President
Giampaolo Pioli expressed "serious concern" about
proposed restrictions on press access to Council members outside their new
meeting area.

Any attempt to use the move and/or safety concerns as a
pretext to institute unprecedented and unnecessary
limitations on press access to the delegations is
unacceptable to UNCA members since it would further
reduce the transparency of the most powerful body within
the United Nations, Pioli said.

"It is ironic that the very Security Council whose
members have jointly and individually criticised
governments around the world for not allowing a free
press to operate in their countries have suddenly gotten
into the business of curtailing a free press at U.N. headquarters," he
added. 

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: moderator at portside.org
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive


!DSPAM:2676,4bcbec8d177557444140974!

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Mon Apr 19 11:06:42 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] FW: UN Blasted for Sequestering NGOs and Media
In-Reply-To: <B8637ABD023745DB8D3E69566F6DB5F0@userPC>
Message-ID: <325356.55178.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I really like this approach -- "Let us not prevent calamity but wait for it and then criticize."
It shows that this is political,,, "let the other side really screw up and hurt a lot of people then we can capitalize on it for our benefit". We can learn how not to act from this.

--- On Mon, 4/19/10, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
(snippage of the article regarding security as an excuse to exclude)

This may be relevant.

"It is not for me to second guess what the Security
Council is doing. I am not going to pre-judge," he
added.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100419/1dbe3778/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Mon Apr 19 11:13:57 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Why we need Governance
Message-ID: <630741.92015.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

So Microsoft is so kind to come up with this device.  Wonderful how they help us out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8629331.stm  Excuse me? how much do I get to pay to fix known errors in their systems?
 
Is this like Toyota saying; "let the accelerators fail then we can charge to fix it"?
 
(all we need now is Boris Karloff playing Dr. No with Austin Powers to the rescue, 1 million dollars moohaaahoaa)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100419/2d189ff4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Mon Apr 19 13:09:38 2010
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:09:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <4BC728A3.6090805@gmail.com>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
 <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@[192.168.1.160]> <4BC728A3.6090805@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136AACB7D8@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>

FWIW, Caribbean governments have designated CARICOM, the regional political grouping as watch for IGF issues and they attract the funding to attend meetings.  CARICOM has sporadically sought to solicit opinions from regional interests on said issues in preparation for participating in the IGF; I have been asked, for one.

Remote participation facilities certainly provides some access but f2f attendance at IGF by civil society actors and groupings would require alternate funding sources so if members believe this is a worthwhile endeavour, then there is merit for special consideration.

Carlton Samuels

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:54 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and

Yes, unfortunately, LAC continues to be the most under-represented region. Since our problems are not perceived as being as "critical" as Africa, we tend to be under-funded from outside sources, while our governments do not/cannot give it the priority we would like to see. It is a dilemma that should be addressed specifically.

Now THIS is a topic for an IGF workshop. Any takers?

Carlos Afonso: my information is that stakeholder groups are self-defined as taken from the registration forms.

Best,
Ginger

Adam Peake wrote:
Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. Has been for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants represented 35% of the total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)

Adam



Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
"technical and academic" community.

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

Ginger Paque wrote:

 FYI:

 Breakdown of IGF participants:
 > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics



--

Carlos A. Afonso
CGI.br (www.cgi.br<http://www.cgi.br>)
Nupef (www.nupef.org.br<http://www.nupef.org.br>)
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca<mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
====================================
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100419/974a7d6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Apr 19 15:19:18 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:19:18 +1200
Subject: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136AACB7D8@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>
References: <4BC5CEFA.2090100@gmail.com> <4BC71D11.6070407@cafonso.ca>
	 <p06240876c7ecd0e8fee6@192.168.1.160> <4BC728A3.6090805@gmail.com>
	 <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136AACB7D8@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>
Message-ID: <s2q83b95841004191219xd575e5cdneef4d1408e2a0481@mail.gmail.com>

In the Pacific, CARICOM's equivalent is the Pacific Islands Forum
Secretariat and recently the Digital Strategy for the region was
undertaken and to be launched at the Pacific Islands
Telecommunications Conference in Honiara this week or the next.
This should be particularly interesting and when it's launched and the
document becomes a public one
I will be sure to send a copy.
The Pacific can participate as we have remote video conferencing
facilities or even the internet...
But the working sector could seek to
Either increase awareness in the Pacific by hosting a few workshops in
the region like the one in Accra.
Developing economies are strategically poised to learn best practices
from the region.

Another way is to impact the curriculum.

Sala (Fiji)

On 4/20/10, SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
> FWIW, Caribbean governments have designated CARICOM, the regional political
> grouping as watch for IGF issues and they attract the funding to attend
> meetings.  CARICOM has sporadically sought to solicit opinions from regional
> interests on said issues in preparation for participating in the IGF; I have
> been asked, for one.
>
> Remote participation facilities certainly provides some access but f2f
> attendance at IGF by civil society actors and groupings would require
> alternate funding sources so if members believe this is a worthwhile
> endeavour, then there is merit for special consideration.
>
> Carlton Samuels
>
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:54 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Breakdown of IGF 2009 participants by region and
>
> Yes, unfortunately, LAC continues to be the most under-represented region.
> Since our problems are not perceived as being as "critical" as Africa, we
> tend to be under-funded from outside sources, while our governments do
> not/cannot give it the priority we would like to see. It is a dilemma that
> should be addressed specifically.
>
> Now THIS is a topic for an IGF workshop. Any takers?
>
> Carlos Afonso: my information is that stakeholder groups are self-defined as
> taken from the registration forms.
>
> Best,
> Ginger
>
> Adam Peake wrote:
> Again, participants from Latin America and the Caribbean is low. Has been
> for all IGFs (expect Rio... when LAC participants represented 35% of the
> total, but of those 29% were from Brazil.)
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> Interesting indeed, Ginger. I assume the classification is on the basis
> of self-defined categories as written in the registration forms. I am
> particularly curious about the relatively large participation of the
> "technical and academic" community.
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>  FYI:
>
>  Breakdown of IGF participants:
>  >
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
>
>
>
> --
>
> Carlos A. Afonso
> CGI.br (www.cgi.br<http://www.cgi.br>)
> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br<http://www.nupef.org.br>)
> ====================================
> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca<mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
> ====================================
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Apr 19 23:56:46 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:56:46 +1200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
In-Reply-To: <324035.60770.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <4BCA8F5D.8060101@itforchange.net>
	 <324035.60770.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <x2q83b95841004192056tb167f5d0u2c4440eb1bc276fe@mail.gmail.com>

Eric,

I am not surprised that she would act in that manner and to some
extent, it could be considered reasonable to expect that from her in
her current role. The notion of "unfettered right of information" is a
Utopian concept and one can have that if you can guarantee that every
person, nation has social and moral obligations and will act ethically
and responsibly.  For as long as there are "sinister" forces, hearts
of "greed", there must be some sort of balance.

There are certain information, that in my view, should remain
undisclosed for security reasons. Ordinarily, one would not disclose
"prototypes" of military warfare to just any country....there are many
forces and variables - commercial and otherwise.  The exception to the
rule should be in instances where "public's interests" or erga omnes
violations.

Sala





On 4/19/10, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I seldom write in derision of my country. But this evil notion of embargo of
> information and knowledge is not acceptable. Article 19 here is good and
> true and holds to almost all Americans belief
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/  Just a mere 6 months ago our SOS
> Hillary condemned in country censorship and denial of access in multiple
> countries yet she stands by and supports denying whole countries the same
> unfettered right to information.
>
> Both of the statements below fall far short of what is needed.  Diplomacy
> between nations is great but when political agendas thwart basic human
> rights that are universal they must be condemned with the strongest
> unambiguous language. This is not a time or situation to coddle and appease
> and work out. If this IGF cannot stand for this basic and well established
> notion then we must look inside ourselves and check the tenants or our own
> reasons for participation. Perhaps here we can see the true distinction
> between those here from a deep abiding commitment and those here as part of
> a job.
>
> --- On Sun, 4/18/10, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 4:49 AM
>
>
>
>
> Adam Peake wrote:
>  When the Geneva WSIS documents were being negotiated Cuba tried,
> unsuccessfully, to get this paragraph in:
>
> "56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be secured
> in accordance with international law, bearing in mind that some countries
> are affected by unilateral measures which are not compatible with it and
> which create obstacles for international trade."
>
> Adam
>
> The Geneva Declaration of Principle does say, in para 46
>
>
> In building the Information Society, States are strongly urged to take steps
> with a view to the avoidance of, and refrain from, any unilateral measure
> not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United
> Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development
> by the population of the affected countries, and that hinders the well-being
> of their population.
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> -----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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From everton.mre at gmail.com  Tue Apr 20 12:00:56 2010
From: everton.mre at gmail.com (Everton Lucero)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:00:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
In-Reply-To: <x2q83b95841004192056tb167f5d0u2c4440eb1bc276fe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BCA8F5D.8060101@itforchange.net>
	 <324035.60770.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	 <x2q83b95841004192056tb167f5d0u2c4440eb1bc276fe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <l2y69d13a981004200900idf221c78k63205afc388b15ba@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, this is an excerpt of the political declaration adopted by the
4th Summit of Heads of State/Government of India, Brazil and South
Africa (IBSA), held in Brasília, on April 15th 2010. I included only
the first portion on political issues. Please note paragraphs 15 and
16 on Internet Governance. There are also some important references to
IPR (paras. 12-14), on the social dimensions of globalization (paras.
6 and 7) and on gender issues (para. 8).


“_INDIA-BRAZIL-SOUTH AFRICA DIALOGUE FORUM FOURTH SUMMIT OF HEADS OF
STATE/GOVERNMENT
BRASÍLIA DECLARATION

15 APRIL 2010

The Prime Minister of the Republic of India, H.E. Dr. Manmohan Singh,
the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, H.E. Mr. Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva, and the President of the Republic of South
Africa, H.E. Mr. Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (hereinafter referred to as
“the Leaders”) met in Brasília, Brazil, on 15 April 2010 for the 4th
Summit of the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum.

2. The Leaders highlighted that the three countries’ commitment to
democratic values, inclusive social development and multilateralism
constitutes the basis for their growing cooperation and close
coordination on global issues. They noted that a first round of IBSA
Summits of Heads of State/Government (Brasilia, 2006; Tshwane, 2007;
New Delhi, 2008) has strengthened
the three countries resolve to continue to work for enhancing the role
of developing countries, increasing the interchanges amongst
themselves with the participation of their peoples, and for
implementing concrete projects in partnership with other developing
countries.

3. Recalling the Declarations and Communiqués issued during the
previous Summits, they took the opportunity to deliberate on the
topics hereunder.

Global Governance

4. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to increase participation
of developing countries in the decision-making bodies of multilateral
institutions. They also reiterated the urgent need for the reform of
the United Nations (UN) to render it more democratic
and consistent with the priorities of developing countries. They
particularly emphasized that no reform of the United Nations will be
complete without a reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), including
an expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent
categories of its membership, with increased participation of
developing countries in both. Such reform is of the utmost importance
for the UNSC to reflect geopolitical realities and to have the
representativeness and legitimacy it needs to face contemporary
challenges. They committed to keep close coordination amongst the
three countries and the broader UN membership to achieve substantial
progress in the intergovernmental negotiations on UNSC reform
presently underway in New York. They recalled that an
overwhelming majority of the UN member states agreed to proceed with a
fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations based on a negotiating
text.

5. The Leaders stressed the need to reform the Bretton Woods
Institutions in order to increase their effectiveness and enhance
their accountability, credibility and legitimacy. They stressed the
importance of increasing the role of developing countries in these
institutions.

The social dimensions of globalization

6. The Leaders reaffirmed that people must come first in the
formulation and implementation of public policies, allowing for fair,
equitable and sustainable development. They considered this issue a
relevant priority in the context of an increasingly globalized
world, in which the economic and financial crisis, and the
restructuring of the international financial architecture that ensued,
directly affect the welfare of people, particularly of vulnerable
groups. In this regard, they stressed the need to strengthen social
policies and to fight hunger and poverty, especially in times of
global economic crisis.

7. The Leaders also reiterated the need to promote a job-intensive
recovery from the downturn and create a framework for sustainable
growth. In this context, they underlined their support for the global
jobs pact, adopted by the 98th session of the international labour
conference, which, while demonstrating the linkages between social
progress, economic development
and recovery from the crisis, offers policy options adaptable to
national needs and circumstances. The Leaders also reaffirmed that
their actions in response to the crisis are guided by the
International Labour Organization (ILO) decent work agenda and the
2008
declaration on social justice for a fair globalization.

Gender

8. The Leaders stressed the importance of empowering women, increasing
their participation in economic activities and addressing the negative
impact of the international financial crisis on their situation. They
received with satisfaction a letter from the IBSA
Women’s Forum and instructed all areas of government involved in IBSA
cooperation to pay due attention to its recommendations. In addition,
the Leaders reiterated their support for the full implementation of UN
Resolution 1325 (2000). They also recalled the
importance of formulating and implementing appropriate policies and
programs in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform
of Action.

Human Rights

9. The Leaders attached the highest priority to human rights issues
and acknowledged the positive advance represented by the creation and
functioning of the Human Rights Council. They noted the importance of
their close collaboration therein. They expressed their hope that the
2011 review will result in a further strengthening of the Council.

10. They also emphasized the need to continue to strengthen
international human rights law, norms and standards, particularly in
the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance, in accordance with the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

11. The Leaders welcomed the adoption of an IBSA proposal in the Human
Rights Council related to the importance of access to medicine
(A/HRC/RES/12/24).

Intellectual Property Rights

12. The Leaders recognized that innovation plays a central role in
addressing the key global challenges of our times such as food
security, poverty eradication, health, access to knowledge and climate
change. They emphasized, in this context, the need for
a balanced international intellectual property system capable of
meeting those challenges on a truly global scale and reducing the
technological gap. To that effect, they called for the full
implementation of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO).

13. They warned against attempts at developing new international rules
on enforcement of intellectual property rights outside the appropriate
fora of WTO and WIPO, that may give free rein to abuses in the
protection of rights, the building of barriers against
free trade and undermining fundamental civil rights.

14. They further expressed renewed concern about the continuous
application of enforcement measures that allow seizures of generic
medicines in transit to developing countries, in violation of World
Trade Organization (WTO) rules and posing a serious threat to
developing countries access to medicines.

Internet Governance

15. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together
towards a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society and their agreement to continue to coordinate
positions for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
folllow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other fora and organizations
related to the Information Society and Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs).

16. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide
political concertation at international level for making the global
internet governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent
as provided by the WSIS. They recognized the advances reached by the
multistakeholders participants in the international dialogue on
internet governance in the last five years. They recalled, with
satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries and the
efforts of Brazil and India for hosting the second and third editions
of the Internet Governance Forum, held in Rio 2007 and Hyderabad 2008,
respectively.

Climate Change
 (...)"
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From everton.mre at gmail.com  Tue Apr 20 12:02:32 2010
From: everton.mre at gmail.com (Everton Lucero)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:02:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] India, Brazil and South Africa Summit - references to
 IG at the political declaration
Message-ID: <n2h69d13a981004200902s9c323b8du767678684b220bd9@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, this is an excerpt of the political declaration adopted by the
4th Summit of Heads of State/Government of India, Brazil and South
Africa (IBSA), held in Brasília, on April 15th 2010. I included only
the first portion on political issues. Please note paragraphs 15 and
16 on Internet Governance. There are also some important references to
IPR (paras. 12-14), on the social dimensions of globalization (paras.
6 and 7) and on gender issues (para. 8).

>
> “_INDIA-BRAZIL-SOUTH AFRICA DIALOGUE FORUM FOURTH SUMMIT OF HEADS OF
> STATE/GOVERNMENT
> BRASÍLIA DECLARATION
>
> 15 APRIL 2010
>
> The Prime Minister of the Republic of India, H.E. Dr. Manmohan Singh,
> the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, H.E. Mr. Luiz
> Inácio Lula da Silva, and the President of the Republic of South
> Africa, H.E. Mr. Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (hereinafter referred to as
> “the Leaders”) met in Brasília, Brazil, on 15 April 2010 for the 4th
> Summit of the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum.
>
> 2. The Leaders highlighted that the three countries’ commitment to
> democratic values, inclusive social development and multilateralism
> constitutes the basis for their growing cooperation and close
> coordination on global issues. They noted that a first round of IBSA
> Summits of Heads of State/Government (Brasilia, 2006; Tshwane, 2007;
> New Delhi, 2008) has strengthened
> the three countries resolve to continue to work for enhancing the role
> of developing countries, increasing the interchanges amongst
> themselves with the participation of their peoples, and for
> implementing concrete projects in partnership with other developing
> countries.
>
> 3. Recalling the Declarations and Communiqués issued during the
> previous Summits, they took the opportunity to deliberate on the
> topics hereunder.
>
> Global Governance
>
> 4. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to increase participation
> of developing countries in the decision-making bodies of multilateral
> institutions. They also reiterated the urgent need for the reform of
> the United Nations (UN) to render it more democratic
> and consistent with the priorities of developing countries. They
> particularly emphasized that no reform of the United Nations will be
> complete without a reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), including
> an expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent
> categories of its membership, with increased participation of
> developing countries in both. Such reform is of the utmost importance
> for the UNSC to reflect geopolitical realities and to have the
> representativeness and legitimacy it needs to face contemporary
> challenges. They committed to keep close coordination amongst the
> three countries and the broader UN membership to achieve substantial
> progress in the intergovernmental negotiations on UNSC reform
> presently underway in New York. They recalled that an
> overwhelming majority of the UN member states agreed to proceed with a
> fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations based on a negotiating
> text.
>
> 5. The Leaders stressed the need to reform the Bretton Woods
> Institutions in order to increase their effectiveness and enhance
> their accountability, credibility and legitimacy. They stressed the
> importance of increasing the role of developing countries in these
> institutions.
>
> The social dimensions of globalization
>
> 6. The Leaders reaffirmed that people must come first in the
> formulation and implementation of public policies, allowing for fair,
> equitable and sustainable development. They considered this issue a
> relevant priority in the context of an increasingly globalized
> world, in which the economic and financial crisis, and the
> restructuring of the international financial architecture that ensued,
> directly affect the welfare of people, particularly of vulnerable
> groups. In this regard, they stressed the need to strengthen social
> policies and to fight hunger and poverty, especially in times of
> global economic crisis.
>
> 7. The Leaders also reiterated the need to promote a job-intensive
> recovery from the downturn and create a framework for sustainable
> growth. In this context, they underlined their support for the global
> jobs pact, adopted by the 98th session of the international labour
> conference, which, while demonstrating the linkages between social
> progress, economic development
> and recovery from the crisis, offers policy options adaptable to
> national needs and circumstances. The Leaders also reaffirmed that
> their actions in response to the crisis are guided by the
> International Labour Organization (ILO) decent work agenda and the
> 2008
> declaration on social justice for a fair globalization.
>
> Gender
>
> 8. The Leaders stressed the importance of empowering women, increasing
> their participation in economic activities and addressing the negative
> impact of the international financial crisis on their situation. They
> received with satisfaction a letter from the IBSA
> Women’s Forum and instructed all areas of government involved in IBSA
> cooperation to pay due attention to its recommendations. In addition,
> the Leaders reiterated their support for the full implementation of UN
> Resolution 1325 (2000). They also recalled the
> importance of formulating and implementing appropriate policies and
> programs in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of all
> Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform
> of Action.
>
> Human Rights
>
> 9. The Leaders attached the highest priority to human rights issues
> and acknowledged the positive advance represented by the creation and
> functioning of the Human Rights Council. They noted the importance of
> their close collaboration therein. They expressed their hope that the
> 2011 review will result in a further strengthening of the Council.
>
> 10. They also emphasized the need to continue to strengthen
> international human rights law, norms and standards, particularly in
> the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
> intolerance, in accordance with the International Convention on the
> Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
>
> 11. The Leaders welcomed the adoption of an IBSA proposal in the Human
> Rights Council related to the importance of access to medicine
> (A/HRC/RES/12/24).
>
> Intellectual Property Rights
>
> 12. The Leaders recognized that innovation plays a central role in
> addressing the key global challenges of our times such as food
> security, poverty eradication, health, access to knowledge and climate
> change. They emphasized, in this context, the need for
> a balanced international intellectual property system capable of
> meeting those challenges on a truly global scale and reducing the
> technological gap. To that effect, they called for the full
> implementation of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual
> Property Organization (WIPO).
>
> 13. They warned against attempts at developing new international rules
> on enforcement of intellectual property rights outside the appropriate
> fora of WTO and WIPO, that may give free rein to abuses in the
> protection of rights, the building of barriers against
> free trade and undermining fundamental civil rights.
>
> 14. They further expressed renewed concern about the continuous
> application of enforcement measures that allow seizures of generic
> medicines in transit to developing countries, in violation of World
> Trade Organization (WTO) rules and posing a serious threat to
> developing countries access to medicines.
>
> Internet Governance
>
> 15. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together
> towards a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
> Information Society and their agreement to continue to coordinate
> positions for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
> folllow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other fora and organizations
> related to the Information Society and Information and Communication
> Technologies (ICTs).
>
> 16. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide
> political concertation at international level for making the global
> internet governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent
> as provided by the WSIS. They recognized the advances reached by the
> multistakeholders participants in the international dialogue on
> internet governance in the last five years. They recalled, with
> satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries and the
> efforts of Brazil and India for hosting the second and third editions
> of the Internet Governance Forum, held in Rio 2007 and Hyderabad 2008,
> respectively.
>
> Climate Change
>  (...)"
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Apr 20 12:24:00 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:24:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] India, Brazil and South Africa Summit -
In-Reply-To: <n2h69d13a981004200902s9c323b8du767678684b220bd9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <n2h69d13a981004200902s9c323b8du767678684b220bd9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1271780640.3209.1555.camel@anriette-laptop>

Dear Everton

Thanks very much for posting this.  I found the IPR paragraphs very
encouraging. They seem to be clearly rejecting ACTA. The fact that human
rights is emphasised, even if not in great detail, is also very
important, particularly for us South Africans. Some of you might
remember that when South Africa served on the Security Council our
voting record was not exactly strong in terms of human rights. Also good
that there is a focus on gender.

I found the references to multi-stakeholder participation a little bit
vague... and it is pity that it is mentioned only under Internet
Governance and not under Global Governance. 

The text recognises the advances made through multi-stakeholder
participation in dialogue, but, there is no mention of multi-stakeholder
participation in governance. That is worrying.

But very important to see that IBSA is engaging these issues and is an
indicator that we should be more involved in advocacy to try and
influence IBSA.

Anriette

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 12:02 -0400, Everton Lucero wrote:
> FYI, this is an excerpt of the political declaration adopted by the
> 4th Summit of Heads of State/Government of India, Brazil and South
> Africa (IBSA), held in Brasília, on April 15th 2010. I included only
> the first portion on political issues. Please note paragraphs 15 and
> 16 on Internet Governance. There are also some important references to
> IPR (paras. 12-14), on the social dimensions of globalization (paras.
> 6 and 7) and on gender issues (para. 8).
> 
> >
> > “_INDIA-BRAZIL-SOUTH AFRICA DIALOGUE FORUM FOURTH SUMMIT OF HEADS OF
> > STATE/GOVERNMENT
> > BRASÍLIA DECLARATION
> >
> > 15 APRIL 2010
> >
> > The Prime Minister of the Republic of India, H.E. Dr. Manmohan Singh,
> > the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, H.E. Mr. Luiz
> > Inácio Lula da Silva, and the President of the Republic of South
> > Africa, H.E. Mr. Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (hereinafter referred to as
> > “the Leaders”) met in Brasília, Brazil, on 15 April 2010 for the 4th
> > Summit of the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum.
> >
> > 2. The Leaders highlighted that the three countries’ commitment to
> > democratic values, inclusive social development and multilateralism
> > constitutes the basis for their growing cooperation and close
> > coordination on global issues. They noted that a first round of IBSA
> > Summits of Heads of State/Government (Brasilia, 2006; Tshwane, 2007;
> > New Delhi, 2008) has strengthened
> > the three countries resolve to continue to work for enhancing the role
> > of developing countries, increasing the interchanges amongst
> > themselves with the participation of their peoples, and for
> > implementing concrete projects in partnership with other developing
> > countries.
> >
> > 3. Recalling the Declarations and Communiqués issued during the
> > previous Summits, they took the opportunity to deliberate on the
> > topics hereunder.
> >
> > Global Governance
> >
> > 4. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to increase participation
> > of developing countries in the decision-making bodies of multilateral
> > institutions. They also reiterated the urgent need for the reform of
> > the United Nations (UN) to render it more democratic
> > and consistent with the priorities of developing countries. They
> > particularly emphasized that no reform of the United Nations will be
> > complete without a reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), including
> > an expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent
> > categories of its membership, with increased participation of
> > developing countries in both. Such reform is of the utmost importance
> > for the UNSC to reflect geopolitical realities and to have the
> > representativeness and legitimacy it needs to face contemporary
> > challenges. They committed to keep close coordination amongst the
> > three countries and the broader UN membership to achieve substantial
> > progress in the intergovernmental negotiations on UNSC reform
> > presently underway in New York. They recalled that an
> > overwhelming majority of the UN member states agreed to proceed with a
> > fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations based on a negotiating
> > text.
> >
> > 5. The Leaders stressed the need to reform the Bretton Woods
> > Institutions in order to increase their effectiveness and enhance
> > their accountability, credibility and legitimacy. They stressed the
> > importance of increasing the role of developing countries in these
> > institutions.
> >
> > The social dimensions of globalization
> >
> > 6. The Leaders reaffirmed that people must come first in the
> > formulation and implementation of public policies, allowing for fair,
> > equitable and sustainable development. They considered this issue a
> > relevant priority in the context of an increasingly globalized
> > world, in which the economic and financial crisis, and the
> > restructuring of the international financial architecture that ensued,
> > directly affect the welfare of people, particularly of vulnerable
> > groups. In this regard, they stressed the need to strengthen social
> > policies and to fight hunger and poverty, especially in times of
> > global economic crisis.
> >
> > 7. The Leaders also reiterated the need to promote a job-intensive
> > recovery from the downturn and create a framework for sustainable
> > growth. In this context, they underlined their support for the global
> > jobs pact, adopted by the 98th session of the international labour
> > conference, which, while demonstrating the linkages between social
> > progress, economic development
> > and recovery from the crisis, offers policy options adaptable to
> > national needs and circumstances. The Leaders also reaffirmed that
> > their actions in response to the crisis are guided by the
> > International Labour Organization (ILO) decent work agenda and the
> > 2008
> > declaration on social justice for a fair globalization.
> >
> > Gender
> >
> > 8. The Leaders stressed the importance of empowering women, increasing
> > their participation in economic activities and addressing the negative
> > impact of the international financial crisis on their situation. They
> > received with satisfaction a letter from the IBSA
> > Women’s Forum and instructed all areas of government involved in IBSA
> > cooperation to pay due attention to its recommendations. In addition,
> > the Leaders reiterated their support for the full implementation of UN
> > Resolution 1325 (2000). They also recalled the
> > importance of formulating and implementing appropriate policies and
> > programs in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of all
> > Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform
> > of Action.
> >
> > Human Rights
> >
> > 9. The Leaders attached the highest priority to human rights issues
> > and acknowledged the positive advance represented by the creation and
> > functioning of the Human Rights Council. They noted the importance of
> > their close collaboration therein. They expressed their hope that the
> > 2011 review will result in a further strengthening of the Council.
> >
> > 10. They also emphasized the need to continue to strengthen
> > international human rights law, norms and standards, particularly in
> > the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
> > intolerance, in accordance with the International Convention on the
> > Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
> >
> > 11. The Leaders welcomed the adoption of an IBSA proposal in the Human
> > Rights Council related to the importance of access to medicine
> > (A/HRC/RES/12/24).
> >
> > Intellectual Property Rights
> >
> > 12. The Leaders recognized that innovation plays a central role in
> > addressing the key global challenges of our times such as food
> > security, poverty eradication, health, access to knowledge and climate
> > change. They emphasized, in this context, the need for
> > a balanced international intellectual property system capable of
> > meeting those challenges on a truly global scale and reducing the
> > technological gap. To that effect, they called for the full
> > implementation of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual
> > Property Organization (WIPO).
> >
> > 13. They warned against attempts at developing new international rules
> > on enforcement of intellectual property rights outside the appropriate
> > fora of WTO and WIPO, that may give free rein to abuses in the
> > protection of rights, the building of barriers against
> > free trade and undermining fundamental civil rights.
> >
> > 14. They further expressed renewed concern about the continuous
> > application of enforcement measures that allow seizures of generic
> > medicines in transit to developing countries, in violation of World
> > Trade Organization (WTO) rules and posing a serious threat to
> > developing countries access to medicines.
> >
> > Internet Governance
> >
> > 15. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together
> > towards a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
> > Information Society and their agreement to continue to coordinate
> > positions for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
> > folllow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other fora and organizations
> > related to the Information Society and Information and Communication
> > Technologies (ICTs).
> >
> > 16. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide
> > political concertation at international level for making the global
> > internet governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent
> > as provided by the WSIS. They recognized the advances reached by the
> > multistakeholders participants in the international dialogue on
> > internet governance in the last five years. They recalled, with
> > satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries and the
> > efforts of Brazil and India for hosting the second and third editions
> > of the Internet Governance Forum, held in Rio 2007 and Hyderabad 2008,
> > respectively.
> >
> > Climate Change
> >  (...)"
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jcancio at mityc.es  Tue Apr 20 16:20:36 2010
From: jcancio at mityc.es (Cancio Melia, Jorge)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:20:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] India, Brazil and South Africa Summit - references
Message-ID: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A699CED7D@SRVC202.mityc.age>

Dear Everton and Dear all

Everto, thanks for this important information!

In addition and in this same spirit of information sharing I would like to draw your attention on the following Declarations which have been adopted so far during the Spanish Presidency of the EU:

- the Granada Ministerial Declaration on the European Agenda, which includes, among other things, references to Internet Governance and the IGF: http://www.eu2010.es/en/documentosynoticias/noticias/abr19_telecomunicaciones_sebastian.html

- the Declaration adopted by the Vth European Union-Latin America and the Caribbean Ministerial Forum on the Information Society, which includes also references to IG and the IGF: http://www.mityc.es/telecomunicaciones/Presidency/actos/marzo2010/Paginas/index.aspx 

Best regards

Jorge Cancio

________________________________________
De: Everton Lucero [everton.mre at gmail.com]
Enviado el: martes, 20 de abril de 2010 18:02
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] India, Brazil and South Africa Summit - references to IG at the political declaration

FYI, this is an excerpt of the political declaration adopted by the
4th Summit of Heads of State/Government of India, Brazil and South
Africa (IBSA), held in Brasília, on April 15th 2010. I included only
the first portion on political issues. Please note paragraphs 15 and
16 on Internet Governance. There are also some important references to
IPR (paras. 12-14), on the social dimensions of globalization (paras.
6 and 7) and on gender issues (para. 8).

>
> “_INDIA-BRAZIL-SOUTH AFRICA DIALOGUE FORUM FOURTH SUMMIT OF HEADS OF
> STATE/GOVERNMENT
> BRASÍLIA DECLARATION
>
> 15 APRIL 2010
>
> The Prime Minister of the Republic of India, H.E. Dr. Manmohan Singh,
> the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, H.E. Mr. Luiz
> Inácio Lula da Silva, and the President of the Republic of South
> Africa, H.E. Mr. Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (hereinafter referred to as
> “the Leaders”) met in Brasília, Brazil, on 15 April 2010 for the 4th
> Summit of the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum.
>
> 2. The Leaders highlighted that the three countries’ commitment to
> democratic values, inclusive social development and multilateralism
> constitutes the basis for their growing cooperation and close
> coordination on global issues. They noted that a first round of IBSA
> Summits of Heads of State/Government (Brasilia, 2006; Tshwane, 2007;
> New Delhi, 2008) has strengthened
> the three countries resolve to continue to work for enhancing the role
> of developing countries, increasing the interchanges amongst
> themselves with the participation of their peoples, and for
> implementing concrete projects in partnership with other developing
> countries.
>
> 3. Recalling the Declarations and Communiqués issued during the
> previous Summits, they took the opportunity to deliberate on the
> topics hereunder.
>
> Global Governance
>
> 4. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to increase participation
> of developing countries in the decision-making bodies of multilateral
> institutions. They also reiterated the urgent need for the reform of
> the United Nations (UN) to render it more democratic
> and consistent with the priorities of developing countries. They
> particularly emphasized that no reform of the United Nations will be
> complete without a reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), including
> an expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent
> categories of its membership, with increased participation of
> developing countries in both. Such reform is of the utmost importance
> for the UNSC to reflect geopolitical realities and to have the
> representativeness and legitimacy it needs to face contemporary
> challenges. They committed to keep close coordination amongst the
> three countries and the broader UN membership to achieve substantial
> progress in the intergovernmental negotiations on UNSC reform
> presently underway in New York. They recalled that an
> overwhelming majority of the UN member states agreed to proceed with a
> fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations based on a negotiating
> text.
>
> 5. The Leaders stressed the need to reform the Bretton Woods
> Institutions in order to increase their effectiveness and enhance
> their accountability, credibility and legitimacy. They stressed the
> importance of increasing the role of developing countries in these
> institutions.
>
> The social dimensions of globalization
>
> 6. The Leaders reaffirmed that people must come first in the
> formulation and implementation of public policies, allowing for fair,
> equitable and sustainable development. They considered this issue a
> relevant priority in the context of an increasingly globalized
> world, in which the economic and financial crisis, and the
> restructuring of the international financial architecture that ensued,
> directly affect the welfare of people, particularly of vulnerable
> groups. In this regard, they stressed the need to strengthen social
> policies and to fight hunger and poverty, especially in times of
> global economic crisis.
>
> 7. The Leaders also reiterated the need to promote a job-intensive
> recovery from the downturn and create a framework for sustainable
> growth. In this context, they underlined their support for the global
> jobs pact, adopted by the 98th session of the international labour
> conference, which, while demonstrating the linkages between social
> progress, economic development
> and recovery from the crisis, offers policy options adaptable to
> national needs and circumstances. The Leaders also reaffirmed that
> their actions in response to the crisis are guided by the
> International Labour Organization (ILO) decent work agenda and the
> 2008
> declaration on social justice for a fair globalization.
>
> Gender
>
> 8. The Leaders stressed the importance of empowering women, increasing
> their participation in economic activities and addressing the negative
> impact of the international financial crisis on their situation. They
> received with satisfaction a letter from the IBSA
> Women’s Forum and instructed all areas of government involved in IBSA
> cooperation to pay due attention to its recommendations. In addition,
> the Leaders reiterated their support for the full implementation of UN
> Resolution 1325 (2000). They also recalled the
> importance of formulating and implementing appropriate policies and
> programs in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of all
> Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform
> of Action.
>
> Human Rights
>
> 9. The Leaders attached the highest priority to human rights issues
> and acknowledged the positive advance represented by the creation and
> functioning of the Human Rights Council. They noted the importance of
> their close collaboration therein. They expressed their hope that the
> 2011 review will result in a further strengthening of the Council.
>
> 10. They also emphasized the need to continue to strengthen
> international human rights law, norms and standards, particularly in
> the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
> intolerance, in accordance with the International Convention on the
> Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
>
> 11. The Leaders welcomed the adoption of an IBSA proposal in the Human
> Rights Council related to the importance of access to medicine
> (A/HRC/RES/12/24).
>
> Intellectual Property Rights
>
> 12. The Leaders recognized that innovation plays a central role in
> addressing the key global challenges of our times such as food
> security, poverty eradication, health, access to knowledge and climate
> change. They emphasized, in this context, the need for
> a balanced international intellectual property system capable of
> meeting those challenges on a truly global scale and reducing the
> technological gap. To that effect, they called for the full
> implementation of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual
> Property Organization (WIPO).
>
> 13. They warned against attempts at developing new international rules
> on enforcement of intellectual property rights outside the appropriate
> fora of WTO and WIPO, that may give free rein to abuses in the
> protection of rights, the building of barriers against
> free trade and undermining fundamental civil rights.
>
> 14. They further expressed renewed concern about the continuous
> application of enforcement measures that allow seizures of generic
> medicines in transit to developing countries, in violation of World
> Trade Organization (WTO) rules and posing a serious threat to
> developing countries access to medicines.
>
> Internet Governance
>
> 15. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together
> towards a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
> Information Society and their agreement to continue to coordinate
> positions for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
> folllow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other fora and organizations
> related to the Information Society and Information and Communication
> Technologies (ICTs).
>
> 16. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide
> political concertation at international level for making the global
> internet governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent
> as provided by the WSIS. They recognized the advances reached by the
> multistakeholders participants in the international dialogue on
> internet governance in the last five years. They recalled, with
> satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries and the
> efforts of Brazil and India for hosting the second and third editions
> of the Internet Governance Forum, held in Rio 2007 and Hyderabad 2008,
> respectively.
>
> Climate Change
>  (...)"
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Apr 20 16:33:49 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:33:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] India, Brazil and South Africa Summit - references
In-Reply-To: <n2h69d13a981004200902s9c323b8du767678684b220bd9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <n2h69d13a981004200902s9c323b8du767678684b220bd9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <s2u83b95841004201333h699b418av35c2883f0f796656@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Everton, it was very interesting and encouraging. I checked the
link: http://www.orissadiary.com/Shownews.asp?id=17875

and found paragraph 41 equally interesting:

"IBSA Satellites

41. The Leaders decided to the early development of satellites in the
areas of space weather, climate and earth observation. These
satellites will address common challenges in climate studies,
agriculture and food security. The IBSA micro satellites aim to
promote and strengthen space programs amongst the three countries."

On 4/21/10, Everton Lucero <everton.mre at gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI, this is an excerpt of the political declaration adopted by the
> 4th Summit of Heads of State/Government of India, Brazil and South
> Africa (IBSA), held in Brasília, on April 15th 2010. I included only
> the first portion on political issues. Please note paragraphs 15 and
> 16 on Internet Governance. There are also some important references to
> IPR (paras. 12-14), on the social dimensions of globalization (paras.
> 6 and 7) and on gender issues (para. 8).
>
>>
>> “_INDIA-BRAZIL-SOUTH AFRICA DIALOGUE FORUM FOURTH SUMMIT OF HEADS OF
>> STATE/GOVERNMENT
>> BRASÍLIA DECLARATION
>>
>> 15 APRIL 2010
>>
>> The Prime Minister of the Republic of India, H.E. Dr. Manmohan Singh,
>> the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, H.E. Mr. Luiz
>> Inácio Lula da Silva, and the President of the Republic of South
>> Africa, H.E. Mr. Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (hereinafter referred to as
>> “the Leaders”) met in Brasília, Brazil, on 15 April 2010 for the 4th
>> Summit of the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum.
>>
>> 2. The Leaders highlighted that the three countries’ commitment to
>> democratic values, inclusive social development and multilateralism
>> constitutes the basis for their growing cooperation and close
>> coordination on global issues. They noted that a first round of IBSA
>> Summits of Heads of State/Government (Brasilia, 2006; Tshwane, 2007;
>> New Delhi, 2008) has strengthened
>> the three countries resolve to continue to work for enhancing the role
>> of developing countries, increasing the interchanges amongst
>> themselves with the participation of their peoples, and for
>> implementing concrete projects in partnership with other developing
>> countries.
>>
>> 3. Recalling the Declarations and Communiqués issued during the
>> previous Summits, they took the opportunity to deliberate on the
>> topics hereunder.
>>
>> Global Governance
>>
>> 4. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to increase participation
>> of developing countries in the decision-making bodies of multilateral
>> institutions. They also reiterated the urgent need for the reform of
>> the United Nations (UN) to render it more democratic
>> and consistent with the priorities of developing countries. They
>> particularly emphasized that no reform of the United Nations will be
>> complete without a reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), including
>> an expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent
>> categories of its membership, with increased participation of
>> developing countries in both. Such reform is of the utmost importance
>> for the UNSC to reflect geopolitical realities and to have the
>> representativeness and legitimacy it needs to face contemporary
>> challenges. They committed to keep close coordination amongst the
>> three countries and the broader UN membership to achieve substantial
>> progress in the intergovernmental negotiations on UNSC reform
>> presently underway in New York. They recalled that an
>> overwhelming majority of the UN member states agreed to proceed with a
>> fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations based on a negotiating
>> text.
>>
>> 5. The Leaders stressed the need to reform the Bretton Woods
>> Institutions in order to increase their effectiveness and enhance
>> their accountability, credibility and legitimacy. They stressed the
>> importance of increasing the role of developing countries in these
>> institutions.
>>
>> The social dimensions of globalization
>>
>> 6. The Leaders reaffirmed that people must come first in the
>> formulation and implementation of public policies, allowing for fair,
>> equitable and sustainable development. They considered this issue a
>> relevant priority in the context of an increasingly globalized
>> world, in which the economic and financial crisis, and the
>> restructuring of the international financial architecture that ensued,
>> directly affect the welfare of people, particularly of vulnerable
>> groups. In this regard, they stressed the need to strengthen social
>> policies and to fight hunger and poverty, especially in times of
>> global economic crisis.
>>
>> 7. The Leaders also reiterated the need to promote a job-intensive
>> recovery from the downturn and create a framework for sustainable
>> growth. In this context, they underlined their support for the global
>> jobs pact, adopted by the 98th session of the international labour
>> conference, which, while demonstrating the linkages between social
>> progress, economic development
>> and recovery from the crisis, offers policy options adaptable to
>> national needs and circumstances. The Leaders also reaffirmed that
>> their actions in response to the crisis are guided by the
>> International Labour Organization (ILO) decent work agenda and the
>> 2008
>> declaration on social justice for a fair globalization.
>>
>> Gender
>>
>> 8. The Leaders stressed the importance of empowering women, increasing
>> their participation in economic activities and addressing the negative
>> impact of the international financial crisis on their situation. They
>> received with satisfaction a letter from the IBSA
>> Women’s Forum and instructed all areas of government involved in IBSA
>> cooperation to pay due attention to its recommendations. In addition,
>> the Leaders reiterated their support for the full implementation of UN
>> Resolution 1325 (2000). They also recalled the
>> importance of formulating and implementing appropriate policies and
>> programs in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of all
>> Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Platform
>> of Action.
>>
>> Human Rights
>>
>> 9. The Leaders attached the highest priority to human rights issues
>> and acknowledged the positive advance represented by the creation and
>> functioning of the Human Rights Council. They noted the importance of
>> their close collaboration therein. They expressed their hope that the
>> 2011 review will result in a further strengthening of the Council.
>>
>> 10. They also emphasized the need to continue to strengthen
>> international human rights law, norms and standards, particularly in
>> the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
>> intolerance, in accordance with the International Convention on the
>> Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
>>
>> 11. The Leaders welcomed the adoption of an IBSA proposal in the Human
>> Rights Council related to the importance of access to medicine
>> (A/HRC/RES/12/24).
>>
>> Intellectual Property Rights
>>
>> 12. The Leaders recognized that innovation plays a central role in
>> addressing the key global challenges of our times such as food
>> security, poverty eradication, health, access to knowledge and climate
>> change. They emphasized, in this context, the need for
>> a balanced international intellectual property system capable of
>> meeting those challenges on a truly global scale and reducing the
>> technological gap. To that effect, they called for the full
>> implementation of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual
>> Property Organization (WIPO).
>>
>> 13. They warned against attempts at developing new international rules
>> on enforcement of intellectual property rights outside the appropriate
>> fora of WTO and WIPO, that may give free rein to abuses in the
>> protection of rights, the building of barriers against
>> free trade and undermining fundamental civil rights.
>>
>> 14. They further expressed renewed concern about the continuous
>> application of enforcement measures that allow seizures of generic
>> medicines in transit to developing countries, in violation of World
>> Trade Organization (WTO) rules and posing a serious threat to
>> developing countries access to medicines.
>>
>> Internet Governance
>>
>> 15. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to working together
>> towards a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
>> Information Society and their agreement to continue to coordinate
>> positions for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
>> folllow-up mechanisms, as well as in the other fora and organizations
>> related to the Information Society and Information and Communication
>> Technologies (ICTs).
>>
>> 16. The Leaders highlighted the importance of building a wide
>> political concertation at international level for making the global
>> internet governance regime as multilateral, democratic and transparent
>> as provided by the WSIS. They recognized the advances reached by the
>> multistakeholders participants in the international dialogue on
>> internet governance in the last five years. They recalled, with
>> satisfaction, the fruitful coordination amongst IBSA countries and the
>> efforts of Brazil and India for hosting the second and third editions
>> of the Internet Governance Forum, held in Rio 2007 and Hyderabad 2008,
>> respectively.
>>
>> Climate Change
>>  (...)"
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Apr 20 17:11:24 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:11:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU Grenada Declaration
References: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A699CED7D@SRVC202.mityc.age>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06B25@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: en_declaracion_granada.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 28158 bytes
Desc: en_declaracion_granada.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100420/75e41261/attachment.pdf>

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Apr 20 18:07:00 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:07:00 +1200
Subject: [governance] EU Grenada Declaration
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06B25@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A699CED7D@SRVC202.mityc.age>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06B25@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <j2s83b95841004201507q5e71e642w8e0a0a11b64ce1cc@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, his is much appreciated.

Sala
On 4/21/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> FYI
>
> wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Apr 20 18:29:43 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] EU Grenada Declaration
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06B25@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <103817.97060.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thank you for this Wolfgang.  I dare say, while I usually notice some emphasis on development that profits the infrastructure building economic community, these notions seem paramount here. 
Yes all the goals are noble but the degree to which next gen stuff gets priority does not seem in keeping with basic connectivity. It appears as though connecting lesser population in quantity with higher tech modalities is the theme, even with the platitudes of 100% availability. Perhaps this is where the EU should place the most importance but I wonder.

--- On Tue, 4/20/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:


From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: [governance] EU Grenada Declaration
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 9:11 PM


FYI

wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100420/cf1caf2e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jcancio at mityc.es  Tue Apr 20 18:46:33 2010
From: jcancio at mityc.es (Cancio Melia, Jorge)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:46:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU GrAnada Declaration
Message-ID: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A69A6EA35@SRVC202.mityc.age>

Dear Wolfgang

What a coincidence: I had just sent the link to the list for the GrAnada Declaration and to the La Granja EU-LAC Declaration which touch on IG and IGF issues ;-)

Best
Jorge
--- Enviado desde PDA

----- Mensaje original -----
De: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Enviado: Tue Apr 20 23:11:24 2010
Asunto: [governance] EU Grenada Declaration

FYI
 
wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Apr 20 21:09:49 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:09:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
In-Reply-To: <324035.60770.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <4BCA8F5D.8060101@itforchange.net>
	 <324035.60770.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <q2n83b95841004201809o5d1ce002recc7502d16c84e73@mail.gmail.com>

Check out this Article

http://en.rsf.org/etats-unis-cia-destruction-of-interrogation-19-04-2010,37079.html
accessed on 21st April, 2010

"CIA destruction of interrogation videos threats US credibility on human rights

It emerged on 15 April from emails released by the CIA under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the agency’s then director,
Porter J. Goss, approved the 2005 decision by the head of its
clandestine service, José A. Rodriguez, to destroy dozens of
videotapes of brutal interrogations carried out on two detainees in
Thailand in 2002 because of concern that they would expose the CIA to
prosecution.

“This is like a scene from a bad movie that keeps on being replayed,”
Reporters Without Borders said. “The destruction of these videos is a
major violation of the freedom of information of American citizens and
the sovereign principle of the First Amendment.”

The press freedom organisation added: “It is now clear that the CIA
systematically tried to hide from the public the illegal interrogation
techniques used during the previous administration. How many more
cases of destroyed videos will we discover?”

The request for documents relating to mistreatment and torture in the
CIA’s secret prisons was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union
under the FOIA in 2003. On 2 March 2009, the federal authorities
acknowledged that 92 video recordings of interrogations were destroyed
in 2005. This is the second revelation of its kind.

According to The New York Times, quoting from the released emails, the
CIA’s director “laughed” when Rodriguez offered to “take the heat” for
the destruction of the videos and replied that he, Goss, would be the
one who took the heat.

We think it is repulsive to “take the heat” when the credibility of
the United States as regards human rights is at stake and we reiterate
the request we made in March of last year for the new Obama
administration to order a special investigation into this infringement
of the American people’s constitutional rights and to punish those who
are responsible.

US society cannot dispense with an investigation into the serious
abuses that were committed in the name of the “war on terrorism.” The
White House’s attempts to block requests for information are
counter-productive. Since 2003, the US authorities have released more
than 100,000 pages of documents about the mistreatment of detainees by
US soldiers. They show that many of them were tortured and that the
techniques used reached a high level of cruelty under the Bush
administration.

The NGO Judicial Watch filed a similar request on 15 May 2009 for CIA
documents relating to briefings about “enhanced interrogation
techniques” that were given to US House speaker Nancy Pelosi and her
senior aide, Michael Sheehy. The government was supposed to release
them by 16 April 2010 but it has asked for more time".

© AFP


On 4/19/10, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I seldom write in derision of my country. But this evil notion of embargo of
> information and knowledge is not acceptable. Article 19 here is good and
> true and holds to almost all Americans belief
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/  Just a mere 6 months ago our SOS
> Hillary condemned in country censorship and denial of access in multiple
> countries yet she stands by and supports denying whole countries the same
> unfettered right to information.
>
> Both of the statements below fall far short of what is needed.  Diplomacy
> between nations is great but when political agendas thwart basic human
> rights that are universal they must be condemned with the strongest
> unambiguous language. This is not a time or situation to coddle and appease
> and work out. If this IGF cannot stand for this basic and well established
> notion then we must look inside ourselves and check the tenants or our own
> reasons for participation. Perhaps here we can see the true distinction
> between those here from a deep abiding commitment and those here as part of
> a job.
>
> --- On Sun, 4/18/10, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reposting Workshop 3: Transnational enforcement
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 4:49 AM
>
>
>
>
> Adam Peake wrote:
>  When the Geneva WSIS documents were being negotiated Cuba tried,
> unsuccessfully, to get this paragraph in:
>
> "56. Access to information and communication technologies shall be secured
> in accordance with international law, bearing in mind that some countries
> are affected by unilateral measures which are not compatible with it and
> which create obstacles for international trade."
>
> Adam
>
> The Geneva Declaration of Principle does say, in para 46
>
>
> In building the Information Society, States are strongly urged to take steps
> with a view to the avoidance of, and refrain from, any unilateral measure
> not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United
> Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development
> by the population of the affected countries, and that hinders the well-being
> of their population.
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> -----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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Apr 21 02:48:13 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:48:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] State Censorship, User Data Requests Released By Google
Message-ID: <21FDF338-EEDC-495A-B55C-3B868FC813D0@graduateinstitute.ch>

of interest...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/google-government-search-_n_545318.html?view=print____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Wed Apr 21 04:36:37 2010
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] State Censorship, User Data Requests Released By
 Google
In-Reply-To: <21FDF338-EEDC-495A-B55C-3B868FC813D0@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <21FDF338-EEDC-495A-B55C-3B868FC813D0@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <525649.69185.qm@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

One has to wonder if this announcement was rushed out in an attempt to lessen the impact of the announcement that 10 privacy commissioners around the world are not happy with Google.

See:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/european-privacy-commissioners-target-google/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8632517.stm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2010/nr-c_100420_e.cfm
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2010/let_100420_e.cfm

And also see the following for more on the Google censorship tool, or go to my website for more reports on both stories - http://goldsteinreport.com/ :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/20/google-google-street-view
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8633642.stm
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/greater-transparency-around-government.html
http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/

David



----- Original Message ----
From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
To: Governance List <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Wed, 21 April, 2010 4:48:13 PM
Subject: [governance] State Censorship, User Data Requests Released By Google

of interest...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/google-government-search-_n_545318.html?view=print____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Apr 21 10:38:06 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:38:06 -0500
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
Message-ID: <4BCF0DCE.1030300@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100421/254fbe36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Wed Apr 21 15:13:56 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BCF0DCE.1030300@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Ginger,
 
Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement. 

--- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM


Hi everyone,

I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.

While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.

As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC. 

Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.

Thanks! Regards, 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100421/d4ace9f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Apr 21 15:21:09 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:21:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100421/05a8d4f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 22 01:07:31 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:37:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net>

Ginger

BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role in 
the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. parminder

Ginger Paque wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning 
> meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From 
> the IGF website:
>
> *The Preparatory Process* The next meeting will be held as a planning 
> meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 
> *10-11 May 2010*. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
> Registration will be opened shortly.
>
> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on *12 May 2010*.
>
> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>> Ginger,
>>  
>> Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" 
>> "invitation" for such a statement.
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque /<gpaque at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>>     From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>     Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC
>>     statement?
>>     To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to
>>     act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote
>>     comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.
>>
>>     While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I
>>     have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are
>>     there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there
>>     affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements
>>     that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is
>>     one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do
>>     so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to
>>     have consensus from the list.
>>
>>     As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC
>>     unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we
>>     represent the members of the IGC.
>>
>>     Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the
>>     upcoming OC.
>>
>>     Thanks! Regards, Ginger
>>
>>     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100422/14ceeaa0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From shailam at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 22 02:16:43 2010
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47989.97744.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Hi Ginger 
Can you send us information on remote participation.
regards
 Shaila 

 
Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 
 

From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Wed, April 21, 2010 12:21:09 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?

Hi,

My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning
meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From
the IGF website:

The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all
interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
Registration will be opened shortly. 

The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12
May 2010.

From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

Best, Ginger

On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: 
Ginger,
> 
>Please link us up to what you are talking about and the
>"request" "invitation" for such a statement. 
>
>>--- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> >wrote:
>
>
>>>>From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>>>Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
>>>>To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
>>
>>
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>>>I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as
>>onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or
>>questions), and to represent the IGC.
>>
>>>>While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not
>>seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points
>>the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP,
>>Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should
>>support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have
>>not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the
>>group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.
>>
>>>>As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we
>>know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members
>>of the IGC. 
>>
>>>>Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming
>>OC.
>>
>>>>Thanks! Regards, 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
>>
>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100421/5cd7fc33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 07:53:26 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:53:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <47989.97744.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> <47989.97744.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BD038B6.8070408@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100422/26d3e6a2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 07:55:23 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:55:23 -0500
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> <4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100422/e8d5884d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 17:00:46 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:00:46 -0300
Subject: [governance] Translation of Brazilian Bill Propostion on Civil
 Rights Framework for Internet
Message-ID: <w2qf7e605ab1004221400ia8fef31ehcb3247886e5a74af@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

In order to contribute to the debate about Internet regulation in the
international community, we have translated the text of the Civil Rights
regulatory framework into English. In accordance with the principles that
framed the whole process, it was translated in a collaborative manner, using
a cloudweb online based tool.

Please find the pdf, doc and txt versions here:
http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/2010/04/20/draft-bill-propostion-on-civil-rights-framework-for-internet-in-brazil/

A *Spanish translation* is also expected, *if you are willing to help*, you
can either forward this call among Spanish native speakers, get in contact
with me (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) or contact us through the hashtag
#marcocivil.

Best wishes,

Marília


<https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5uBt99PdGHCMTRlODFiMWMtZTU4Yi00ZmZhLWIyNjEtYmNiNjFlOTlmYjlh>


On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As you may have heard, Brazil is going through a very special (and unique)
> phase of the regulation of Internet in the country. In the end of 2009, a
> process of public consultation to collaboratively elaborate a *civil**-*rights
> based regulatory *framework* for *internet* in Brazil has been put forth
> by the Ministry of Justice (MJ), with the support of the Center for
> Technology and Society (CTS) of the Getulio Vargas Foundation.
>
> This collaborative process substitutes very dangerous attempts to regulate
> the Internet from a criminal standpoint . The more widely known bill was
> called law Azeredo, which disregarded privacy concerns and criminalized
> socially accepted behaviors. The result would be massive criminalization of
> the population and a draconian protection of copyright.
>
> A platform has been created specially for people to comment of the proposal
> of civil framework. On the first phase of the consultation people had to
> comment on a text about general principles and issues. Those comments were
> read and systematized by MJ and CTS and have based the creation of a draft
> bill. This bill has been made available online today. It is under a second
> phase of public consultation, which will last for 45 days. The suggestions
> will be again systematized and incorporated to the bill, which will then be
> present to our Congress for discussion. Some points of this process need to
> be highlighted:
>
> 1-      This is a unique process of public consultation. There has never
> been such a wide and open possibility for society to be heard about a new
> regulation. Participation on the first phase came from civil society,
> business sector and governments organizations.
>
> 2-       This is a pilot-experiment, that can be used in the future to
> discuss other law proposals. In this sense, Brazil is making a huge step
> towards the improvement of e-participation and e-democracy.
>
> 3-      The battle is just beginning. There is a long way until the bill
> is approved. But we would not have come this far without a vibrant civil
> society movement who has said “no” to laws like “Azeredo law” and has made
> protests and campaigns throughout the country, both online and offline.
>
> I would like to share with you the link to the platform. Although the text
> of the bill is only in Portuguese, we are already working on its translation
> in order to give it publicity outside Brazil.
>
> http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/
>
> This is a very important day for the Brazilian Internet users and I would
> like to share the good news with you.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Marília
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center of Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100422/67a87394/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Apr 22 18:03:07 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:03:07 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Internet Access 2G
In-Reply-To: <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
 <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <30574199.21914.1271973787851.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g04>


Hello Ginger and the list 

Attached to this mail you'll find an interesting information about the new US vision and legislation on Internet Access. A track for an "Internet Access 2G"  standard ? ...

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT France 



> Message du 21/04/10 21:21
> De : "Ginger Paque" 
> A : "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the IGF website:
> 
> The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
> Registration will be opened shortly. 
> 
> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12 May 2010.
> 
> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
> 
> Best, Ginger
> 
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: Ginger,   Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement. 
> 
> --- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 
> From: Ginger Paque 
> Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" 
> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.
> 
> While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.
> 
> As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC. 
> 
> Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.
> 
> Thanks! Regards, 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/506e971e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Apr 22 18:05:55 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:05:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Internet Access 2G
Message-ID: <20234874.21957.1271973955797.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g04>


Sorry for missing attached document


Hello Ginger and the list 


Attached to this mail you'll find an interesting information about the new US vision and legislation on Internet Access. A track for an "Internet Access 2G"  standard ? ...

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT France 



> Message du 21/04/10 21:21
> De : "Ginger Paque" 
> A : "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the IGF website:
> 
> The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
> Registration will be opened shortly. 
> 
> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12 May 2010.
> 
> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
> 
> Best, Ginger
> 
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: Ginger,
 
Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement. 
> 
> --- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 

> From: Ginger Paque 
> Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" 
> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.
> 
> While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.
> 
> As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC. 
> 
> Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.
> 
> Thanks! Regards, 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/b383140f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IG_Secret treaty will impose draconian US Internet.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 17099 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/b383140f/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 18:18:12 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:18:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Internet Access 2G continued.... link to ACTA draft
In-Reply-To: <20234874.21957.1271973955797.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g04>
References: <20234874.21957.1271973955797.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g04>
Message-ID: <4BD0CB24.4020101@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100422/920c2677/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Apr 22 19:34:32 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Internet Access 2G
In-Reply-To: <20234874.21957.1271973955797.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g04>
Message-ID: <824992.3315.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I just love it when someone else does that and somehow skips the attachment -- it makes me feel better about the 3,876 times I have done it -- to error is human, trouble is,,, getting all upset about it is also human ;-)
 
I do not know about how someone should be taken seriously when they say "I have a secret document, that forbids the seeing of secret documents". Well if its really secret how the hell did they get it?  And if it is a "policy" to keep things secret, but it ain't well.... not much to take serious, is there?
 
Makes for good tabloid stuff

--- On Thu, 4/22/10, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:


From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
Subject: [governance] Internet Access 2G
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010, 10:05 PM



Sorry for missing attached document


Hello Ginger and the list 


Attached to this mail you'll find an interesting information about the new US vision and legislation on Internet Access. A track for an "Internet Access 2G"  standard ? ...

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT France 




> Message du 21/04/10 21:21
> De : "Ginger Paque" 
> A : "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the IGF website:
> 
> The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
> Registration will be opened shortly. 
> 
> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12 May 2010.
> 
> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
> 
> Best, Ginger
> 
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: 





Ginger,
 
Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement. 
> 
> --- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 

> From: Ginger Paque 
> Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" 
> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
> 
> 
Hi everyone,
> 
> I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.
> 
> While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.
> 
> As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC. 
> 
> Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.
> 
> Thanks! Regards, 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
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100422/a9021f75/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Apr 22 20:29:02 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505604.71191.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I reread this briefing/statement from the UN. I do not see how anything could be more clear.
What is this increased process that Parminder is speaking of? I could maybe see some more clarity here like: More step by step process for debate and submission of matters to be debated. And, doing away with this constant call for consensus and group statements. Clearly we are mandated to discuss and broaden understanding -- not make platforms and propose agendas.
 
".....have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet. It
is a place where Governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations
discuss both the technical underpinnings of the Internet and important questions of economic and
social development. They share their insights and achievements. Above all, they build a common
understanding of the Internet’s great potential as well as the many risks and challenges in its
governance."


--- On Thu, 4/22/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010, 11:55 AM


Hi Parminder and all,
Could we have ideas and positions on this possibility? From MAG members and non-MAG members, please?

Thanks, gp

On 4/22/2010 12:07 AM, Parminder wrote: 
Ginger

BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role in the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. parminder 

Ginger Paque wrote: 
Hi,

My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the IGF website:

The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
Registration will be opened shortly. 

The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12 May 2010.

From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

Best, Ginger

On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: 





Ginger,
 
Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement. 

--- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM


Hi everyone,

I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.

While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.

As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC. 

Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.

Thanks! Regards, 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100422/15abf328/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 22 23:32:57 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:02:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> <4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net> <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BD114E9.7000307@itforchange.net>



Ginger Paque wrote:
> Hi Parminder and all,
> Could we have ideas and positions on this possibility? From MAG 
> members and non-MAG members, please?

It is my opinion that if the IGF is at all to even attempt to address  
half of its mandated tasks, which it has never addressed itself to - 
like giving advise, recommendations, interacting with other institutions 
etc - the only way to do so is to strengthen the MAG, and structure it 
appropriately for  these  tasks. There is no other way  - an open house 
like the IGF  cannot  do  these tasks on its own.  That is as  clear as 
the daylight.  MAG,  or  whatever name this core multistakeholder group 
of the IGF  takes, needs to have a central role in  addressing these 
parts of the mandate.

This is why I have always considered any attempt at further diluting the 
role and structure of the MAG as a strong move in a direction exactly 
opposite to where we need to go, in fulfilling the mandate of the IGF.

The recent statement of G 77 and China at the UN Under Secretary 
General's briefing on IGF review  strongly makes  this point on  
strengthening the capacity of the IGF to perform its above mentioned 
mandated tasks.

It is easy to badmouth developing country governments with regard to 
their stance on many IG related issues, especially on their perceived 
lack of enthusiasm for giving non-governmental groups a stronger role in 
IG issues, but the silences of civil society groups on such very 
legitimate issues - whereby the IGF is not enabled to fulfil its mandate 
of assisting in shaping global Internet policies - is heard loud and 
clear. Do such silences not justify developing country's suspicion of 
multistakeholder processes in IG? This of course is a deliberately 
provocative poser.

Are we ready to really get down to the task of examining the strongly 
detrimental implications of the current vacuums in the global internet 
policy regimes, especially for the marginalised people, groups and 
countries? What can IGF do in this regard, and what was it expected to 
do? What should be the role and structure of MAG to enable what the IGF 
should ideally be able to do, and was mandated for it to do by the WSIS?


Parminder

PS: Another interesting issue to ponder upon; If developing countries  
want  the IGF -  the only  really multistakeholder body in  IG arena - 
to have a clearer role in global Internet policy arena - even if only of 
advising, interacting with other organisation etc , while many others 
(you know who) are not too enthusiastic about such a role for the IGF, 
who is more pro-multistakeholderism and who anti?



>

>
> Thanks, gp
>
> On 4/22/2010 12:07 AM, Parminder wrote:
>> Ginger
>>
>> BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role 
>> in the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. 
>> parminder
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning 
>>> meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. 
>>> From the IGF website:
>>>
>>> *The Preparatory Process* The next meeting will be held as a 
>>> planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take 
>>> place on *10-11 May 2010*. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
>>> Registration will be opened shortly.
>>>
>>> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on *12 May 2010*.
>>>
>>> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>>>
>>> Best, Ginger
>>>
>>> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>  
>>>> Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" 
>>>> "invitation" for such a statement.
>>>>
>>>> --- On *Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque /<gpaque at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>>>     Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC
>>>>     statement?
>>>>     To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>     Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
>>>>
>>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>>     I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to
>>>>     act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive
>>>>     remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.
>>>>
>>>>     While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I
>>>>     have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement.
>>>>     Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are
>>>>     there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making
>>>>     statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of
>>>>     our members is one function that we have not exercised fully
>>>>     imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask
>>>>     for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.
>>>>
>>>>     As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC
>>>>     unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we
>>>>     represent the members of the IGC.
>>>>
>>>>     Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the
>>>>     upcoming OC.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks! Regards, Ginger
>>>>
>>>>     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>     <http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>     <http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>
>>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/a248f8b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Apr 23 05:18:19 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:18:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BD114E9.7000307@itforchange.net>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> 
	<4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net> <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com> 
	<4BD114E9.7000307@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <l2wecb172de1004230218n30c6973etfa2b9a3eb3e0bdff@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness. Developped
countries and certain emerging countries are very well represented within
MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of their area and their
respective countries. But a lot of number of African countries are not
present or inactive within  MAG.

Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity and
credibility  require involvment and participation of all actors according to
the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from  Geneva Action
Plan and Agenda of Tunis.
However development of digital technology takes increasingly large
proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very
few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in
Africa.

Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on
behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder and all,
> Could we have ideas and positions on this possibility? From MAG members and
> non-MAG members, please?
>
>
> It is my opinion that if the IGF is at all to even attempt to address  half
> of its mandated tasks, which it has never addressed itself to - like giving
> advise, recommendations, interacting with other institutions etc - the only
> way to do so is to strengthen the MAG, and structure it appropriately for
> these  tasks. There is no other way  - an open house like the IGF  cannot
> do  these tasks on its own.  That is as  clear as the daylight.  MAG,  or
> whatever name this core multistakeholder group of the IGF  takes, needs to
> have a central role in  addressing these parts of the mandate.
>
> This is why I have always considered any attempt at further diluting the
> role and structure of the MAG as a strong move in a direction exactly
> opposite to where we need to go, in fulfilling the mandate of the IGF.
>
> The recent statement of G 77 and China at the UN Under Secretary General's
> briefing on IGF review  strongly makes  this point on  strengthening the
> capacity of the IGF to perform its above mentioned mandated tasks.
>
> It is easy to badmouth developing country governments with regard to their
> stance on many IG related issues, especially on their perceived lack of
> enthusiasm for giving non-governmental groups a stronger role in IG issues,
> but the silences of civil society groups on such very legitimate issues -
> whereby the IGF is not enabled to fulfil its mandate of assisting in shaping
> global Internet policies - is heard loud and clear. Do such silences not
> justify developing country's suspicion of multistakeholder processes in IG?
> This of course is a deliberately provocative poser.
>
> Are we ready to really get down to the task of examining the strongly
> detrimental implications of the current vacuums in the global internet
> policy regimes, especially for the marginalised people, groups and
> countries? What can IGF do in this regard, and what was it expected to do?
> What should be the role and structure of MAG to enable what the IGF should
> ideally be able to do, and was mandated for it to do by the WSIS?
>
>
> Parminder
>
> PS: Another interesting issue to ponder upon; If developing countries
> want  the IGF -  the only  really multistakeholder body in  IG arena - to
> have a clearer role in global Internet policy arena - even if only of
> advising, interacting with other organisation etc , while many others (you
> know who) are not too enthusiastic about such a role for the IGF, who is
> more pro-multistakeholderism and who anti?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, gp
>
> On 4/22/2010 12:07 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
> Ginger
>
> BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role in
> the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. parminder
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning
> meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the
> IGF website:
>
> *The Preparatory Process* The next meeting will be held as a planning
> meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on *10-11
> May 2010*. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
> Registration will be opened shortly.
>
> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on *12 May 2010*.
>
> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
>   Ginger,
>
> Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request"
> "invitation" for such a statement.
>
> --- On *Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> <gpaque at gmail.com>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> <gpaque at gmail.com>
> Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <%27governance at lists.cpsr.org%27>
> <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as
> onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or
> questions), and to represent the IGC.
>
> While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen
> any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC
> membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.)
> groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting
> actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully
> imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC
> support, and to have consensus from the list.
>
> As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know
> what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the
> IGC.
>
> Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.
>
> Thanks! Regards, Ginger
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc807.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/b3784925/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Apr 23 08:09:09 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:09:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <l2wecb172de1004230218n30c6973etfa2b9a3eb3e0bdff@mail.gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> 
	<4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net> <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com> 
	<4BD114E9.7000307@itforchange.net> <l2wecb172de1004230218n30c6973etfa2b9a3eb3e0bdff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <u2vf65fb55e1004230509h453c44fcocf4a08cb61c9fc6@mail.gmail.com>

Baudouin,

is it really the case that all MAG members represent their countries?  Are
they supposed to?  I thought they acted in individual capacity?
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness. Developped
> countries and certain emerging countries are very well represented within
> MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of their area and their
> respective countries. But a lot of number of African countries are not
> present or inactive within  MAG.
>
> Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity
> and credibility  require involvment and participation of all actors
> according to the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from
> Geneva Action Plan and Agenda of Tunis.
> However development of digital technology takes increasingly large
> proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very
> few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in
> Africa.
>
> Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on
> behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>                           +243811980914
> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
> niveau.
>
>
> 2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>
>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/58fe9d32/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Apr 23 12:04:07 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:04:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <u2vf65fb55e1004230509h453c44fcocf4a08cb61c9fc6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> 
	<4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net> <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com> 
	<4BD114E9.7000307@itforchange.net> <l2wecb172de1004230218n30c6973etfa2b9a3eb3e0bdff@mail.gmail.com> 
	<u2vf65fb55e1004230509h453c44fcocf4a08cb61c9fc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <y2yecb172de1004230904gf28fba76jdbf2008cb39a678b@mail.gmail.com>

in my comprehension, MAG is a platform which gathers several actors
belonging to several disciplines of university formation. One belongs to
public sector, private sector or civil society.

Since WSIS process , all those actors  had to work together. This experience
is correctly capitalized in many developed countries and certain countries
emerging but not sufficiently in majority of African countries. Africa
contribution  in IGF process is however too weak even so appraise does not
miss.

One can plan to reinforce MAG but then it will be necessary to take account
of all these parameters without going into reverse.


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/4/23 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>

> Baudouin,
>
> is it really the case that all MAG members represent their countries?  Are
> they supposed to?  I thought they acted in individual capacity?
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness. Developped
>> countries and certain emerging countries are very well represented within
>> MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of their area and their
>> respective countries. But a lot of number of African countries are not
>> present or inactive within  MAG.
>>
>> Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity
>> and credibility  require involvment and participation of all actors
>> according to the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from
>> Geneva Action Plan and Agenda of Tunis.
>> However development of digital technology takes increasingly large
>> proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very
>> few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in
>> Africa.
>>
>> Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on
>> behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.
>>
>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>>
>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>>                           +243811980914
>> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
>> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
>> niveau.
>>
>>
>> 2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/0a8838e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Apr 23 12:35:47 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BD114E9.7000307@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <844801.13367.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Could you be more specific here? It almost sounds like you are saying that appointed people for this MAG should have more power. I mean a power that is delegated by officers of the UN,,, and not the power that comes from insight, sound advice and hard work. Is it your thought that a mere voice and platform are not enough?  Are you saying that MAG members should be given respect and gravamen to their positions?

--- On Fri, 4/23/10, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



It is my opinion that if the IGF is at all to even attempt to address  half of its mandated tasks, which it has never addressed itself to - like giving advise, recommendations, interacting with other institutions etc - the only way to do so is to strengthen the MAG, and structure it appropriately for  these  tasks. There is no other way  - an open house like the IGF  cannot  do  these tasks on its own.  That is as  clear as the daylight.  MAG,  or  whatever name this core multistakeholder group of the IGF  takes, needs to have a central role in  addressing these parts of the mandate. 

This is why I have always considered any attempt at further diluting the role and structure of the MAG as a strong move in a direction exactly opposite to where we need to go, in fulfilling the mandate of the IGF.

The recent statement of G 77 and China at the UN Under Secretary General's briefing on IGF review  strongly makes  this point on  strengthening the capacity of the IGF to perform its above mentioned mandated tasks.

It is easy to badmouth developing country governments with regard to their stance on many IG related issues, especially on their perceived lack of enthusiasm for giving non-governmental groups a stronger role in IG issues, but the silences of civil society groups on such very legitimate issues - whereby the IGF is not enabled to fulfil its mandate of assisting in shaping global Internet policies - is heard loud and clear. Do such silences not justify developing country's suspicion of multistakeholder processes in IG? This of course is a deliberately provocative poser. 

Are we ready to really get down to the task of examining the strongly detrimental implications of the current vacuums in the global internet policy regimes, especially for the marginalised people, groups and countries? What can IGF do in this regard, and what was it expected to do? What should be the role and structure of MAG to enable what the IGF should ideally be able to do, and was mandated for it to do by the WSIS?


Parminder 

PS: Another interesting issue to ponder upon; If developing countries  want  the IGF -  the only  really multistakeholder body in  IG arena - to have a clearer role in global Internet policy arena - even if only of advising, interacting with other organisation etc , while many others (you know who) are not too enthusiastic about such a role for the IGF, who is more pro-multistakeholderism and who anti? 








Thanks, gp

On 4/22/2010 12:07 AM, Parminder wrote: 
Ginger

BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role in the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. parminder 

Ginger Paque wrote: 
Hi,

My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the IGF website:

The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
Registration will be opened shortly. 

The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12 May 2010.

From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

Best, Ginger

On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: 





Ginger,
 
Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement. 

--- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM


Hi everyone,

I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.

While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.

As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC. 

Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.

Thanks! Regards, 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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/fabf62c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Apr 23 12:42:42 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <y2yecb172de1004230904gf28fba76jdbf2008cb39a678b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <366053.25788.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

My question is very pointed. Are you suggesting that by the mere status of being a member of an underepresented African group, they should be elevated or treated specially?
It would appear that they have been given opportunity but have chosen* not to take it. What am I missing?
 
*I make no assumptions or judgment on that choice. It may well be that circumstances "at home" block that choice from being elected.

--- On Fri, 4/23/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 4:04 PM



in my comprehension, MAG is a platform which gathers several actors belonging to several disciplines of university formation. One belongs to  public sector, private sector or civil society. 

Since WSIS process , all those actors  had to work together. This experience is correctly capitalized in many developed countries and certain countries emerging but not sufficiently in majority of African countries. Africa contribution  in IGF process is however too weak even so appraise does not miss. 

One can plan to reinforce MAG but then it will be necessary to take account of all these parameters without going into reverse.

 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau.



2010/4/23 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>

Baudouin, 

is it really the case that all MAG members represent their countries?  Are they supposed to?  I thought they acted in individual capacity?
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel





On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all, 

Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness. Developped countries and certain emerging countries are very well represented within  MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of their area and their respective countries. But a lot of number of African countries are not present or inactive within  MAG. 

Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity and credibility  require involvment and participation of all actors according to the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from  Geneva Action Plan and Agenda of Tunis. 
However development of digital technology takes increasingly large proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in Africa. 

Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau.



2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>









____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100423/ceae35d2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Apr 23 16:26:09 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:26:09 +0500
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	 <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> <4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net>
	 <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <z2m701af9f71004231326h592683dey4d36fa8d858b2174@mail.gmail.com>

I would like to agree with Parminder on the issues about MAG's role as
well as the situation on the open house.

The MAG is where the politics takes place and a mild form of stances
with lobbying happens with regards to the IGF process and is only the
tip (meaning programming of the IGF) and if the process was left to
the openness, really, the tasks and needs wouldn't find there way into
the program nor would help in the struggle to achieve the actual goal
of the IGF. The programs would be locked without consensus, many of
the small changes that could find there way into the program would
never happen.

I took this perception with me into the MAG that IGC's stance is the
mandate we take to the MAG, to represent and protect IGC's interests.
That is why before every MAG or OC I have requested IGC to forward
either a statement or list of items that we need to pursue. The issue
of IG4D was a long standing one but it found place in the main program
but not with one stakeholder group. It was supported by all
multistakeholders. In my opinion, this is an example of IGC's OC
presence and then its members as MAG presence and efforts to make
aware other stakeholder groups. One group brings the issue up, it is
heard both at OCs and the IGF itself and it finds its way back into
the MAG and into the program. That's how the required change and much
anticipated innovation slowly happens in the IGF. What would happen if
this mechanism would also be lost? This role or maybe we can call it a
political position shouldn't be dropped at all.

Developing countries are slow to realize the importance of MAG and the
IGF as an aid to their Internet policy making efforts but wasn't this
also a much heard mission to build the capacity of
countries/developing countries on IG?

I've been visiting both sides of the Internet now, the ICANN and the
IGF. Guess what, IGF is the last thing many want to be fulfilling the
mandate of giving advise, recommendations, interacting with other
institutions on Internet issues - guess who does want to stay in and
play this role? and to tell you the truth, I continue to see that the
Internet is really affected by a couple of big pockets and misguidance
of governance in various roles and the smaller nations being kept away
from the real issues.

As Parminder points it out clearly, who's role would it be to guide
the developing countries. Unless our MAG members have any other
personal interests, I think we would all agree to the point's
Parminder made. We should have a strong stance with a statement here
that should cover:

1. IGC's say on the continuation of the MAG
2. Improvement in terms of representation - more members on the MAG
from developing countries - especially governments
3. IGC's emphasis on the IGF mandate and to somehow cover advise,
recommendations, interaction with other institutions



On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder and all,
> Could we have ideas and positions on this possibility? From MAG members and non-MAG members, please?
>
> Thanks, gp
>
> On 4/22/2010 12:07 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
> Ginger
>
> BTW, the MAG meeting on the 12th will consider/ assess MAG's own role in the IGF's process. A statement for that can perhaps be attempted. parminder
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My reference to the Geneva OC is for the Open Consultation planning meetings for the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) 2010 in Vilnius. From the IGF website:
>
> The Preparatory Process The next meeting will be held as a planning meeting open to all interested stakeholders and will take place on 10-11 May 2010. Meeting schedule: 10-13 and 15-18 hours.
> Registration will be opened shortly.
>
> The planning meeting will be followed by a MAG meeting on 12 May 2010.
>
> From: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> On 4/21/2010 2:13 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> Ginger,
>
> Please link us up to what you are talking about and the "request" "invitation" for such a statement.
>
> --- On Wed, 4/21/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
> Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I expect to be at the Geneva OC meetings May 10th and 11th, to act as onsite remote moderator (to present any substantive remote comments or questions), and to represent the IGC.
>
> While discussions have moved forward on workshop proposals, I have not seen any concrete suggestions for an IGC statement. Are there points the IGC membership would like to make? Are there affiliated (IRP, Gender, etc.) groups who are making statements that the IGC should support? Supporting actions of our members is one function that we have not exercised fully imho. However to do so, we need someone from the group to ask for IGC support, and to have consensus from the list.
>
> As coordinators, Jeremy and I cannot take action for the IGC unless we know what the members want done/said, so that we represent the members of the IGC.
>
> Please let us know what you would like the IGC to 'do' at the upcoming OC.
>
> Thanks! Regards, 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Apr 23 17:01:33 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:01:33 +0300
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <z2m701af9f71004231326h592683dey4d36fa8d858b2174@mail.gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> 
	<4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net> <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com> 
	<z2m701af9f71004231326h592683dey4d36fa8d858b2174@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h2kf65fb55e1004231401ge9966c66h65b76d229cba82f8@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
>
> Developing countries are slow to realize the importance of MAG and the
> IGF as an aid to their Internet policy making efforts

?? If this is the case, why are the majority of IGF participants from
developing regions?

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics


but wasn't this
> also a much heard mission to build the capacity of
> countries/developing countries on IG?

I never heard this. One builds the capacity of individuals, not nation states.


>
> I've been visiting both sides of the Internet now, the ICANN and the
> IGF. Guess what, IGF is the last thing many want to be fulfilling the
> mandate of giving advise, recommendations, interacting with other
> institutions on Internet issues


Do you have any evidence of this?


- guess who does want to stay in and
> play this role?

I assume you are referring to the Internet technical community here?
If what you are speculating is true, why would they continue to
support the IGF financially?


and to tell you the truth, I continue to see that the
> Internet is really affected by a couple of big pockets and misguidance
> of governance in various roles and the smaller nations being kept away
> from the real issues.


Can you name the pockets, describe the misguidance and be more
specific about which smaller nations are kept away from which issues?

>
> As Parminder points it out clearly, who's role would it be to guide
> the developing countries. Unless our MAG members have any other
> personal interests, I think we would all agree to the point's
> Parminder made.

not me.

 We should have a strong stance with a statement here
> that should cover:
>
> 1. IGC's say on the continuation of the MAG
> 2. Improvement in terms of representation - more members on the MAG
> from developing countries - especially governments


I've just counted.  there are ~50% OF MAG members from developing
countries.  What percentage would you consider fair?

Why on earth would the CS IGC call for greater governmental
representation on the MAG?  We should be calling for more CS types,
no?


-- 
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Apr 24 10:19:21 2010
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Decommission Internet Governance Domains
Message-ID: <sympa.1272118491.493.892@lists.cpsr.org>

We are currently decommission Internet Governance Domain portfolio as they
expire,

This is an opportunity to acquire the following Domains before they go to
Expiration Cycle:

* Domain name: Expiration: *
-------------------------------------------------- --
igforum.eu	2010-05-13

-

* Domain name: Expiration: *
-------------------------------------------------- --
igcaucus.com	2010-06-18

---

If you are interested, setup an account at:
Domain Discount24 [http://www.domaindiscount24.net/]
and I will push them to you. Or let me know the Service Provider info to look
for when you Innitiate a Transfer. (post it here on the list).

Otherwise they will most likely end up on the auction block.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From meryem at marzouki.info  Sun Apr 25 04:40:24 2010
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:40:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Program and Registration - 3rd GigaNet Workshop in
 Montreal, 30&31 May 2010 - "Global Internet Governance: An
 Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction"
Message-ID: <7CA46A4E-96BC-4CB5-9DFD-F988ABBCFA8F@marzouki.info>

[Apologies in case of multiple reception]
Dear colleagues,

Please find attached the detailed program and registration form of  
the Third International Workshop on "Global Internet Governance: An  
Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction", to be held in  
Montreal (Quebec), Canada, on 30 and 31 May 2010.

The first day is dedicated to outreach sessions aimed at increasing  
the interest in the global Internet governance field among various  
academic disciplines and the civil society at large. The second day  
features thematic presentations selected upon submissions made in  
response to a call for contributions.
The working language is English, however the Sunday afternoon session  
(civil society outreach) will be bilingual, with French and English  
as working languages.

Overview of workshop sessions:
Day 1 - Sunday 30 May 2010, 10:00-18:00
10:30-12:30 - Roundtable: What is Internet Governance Research and  
What do Different Academic Disciplines
Contribute to it?
13:30-18:00 - Civil Society Outreach Session / Dialogue avec la  
société civile (Open Mic Bilingual Discussion /
Discussion ouverte bilingue)
- Topic 1: Network Neutrality / Neutralité des réseaux
- Topic 2: Intellectual Property and Copyright / Propriété  
intellectuelle et copyright
- Topic 3: Privacy and Surveillance / Vie privée et surveillance
- Conclusions
Day 2 - Monday 31 May 2010, 8:30-16:00
8:30-10:00 - Session 1: Access to Infrastructure Policies
10:00-11:00 - Session 2: Protocols and Standards
11:30-13:00 - Session 3: Content and Behavior Governance
14:00-15:30 - Session 4: Actors, Institutions and Regimes
15:30-16:00 - Closing Session

This workshop is organized by GigaNet (The Global Internet Governance  
Academic Network - http://giga-net.org), in cooperation with the  
Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill.

The workshop website include all useful information to participate to  
the workshop: http://giga-net.org/page/2010-international-workshop
Please help disseminating this information as widely as possible.

We hope that you will be able to participate to the workshop. In such  
case, please don't forget to register yourself before 12 May 2010, as  
this is required for logistics management.

We look forward to to welcoming you in Montreal!

Best regards,
Meryem Marzouki, Workshop Program Committee Chair

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GigaNetMontreal2010-Program.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 523570 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100425/39cc597d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RegistrationForm2010.rtf
Type: text/rtf
Size: 45684 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100425/39cc597d/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------


--
Meryem Marzouki
LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS
104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris
http://www-polytic.lip6.fr


From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Apr 25 11:13:14 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:13:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <h2kf65fb55e1004231401ge9966c66h65b76d229cba82f8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <752476.15005.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4BCF5025.3020003@gmail.com> 	<4BCFD993.4070809@itforchange.net> <4BD0392B.4020602@gmail.com> 	<z2m701af9f71004231326h592683dey4d36fa8d858b2174@mail.gmail.com> <h2kf65fb55e1004231401ge9966c66h65b76d229cba82f8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BD45C0A.40506@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100425/e66178ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 11:46:05 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:46:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <366053.25788.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <y2yecb172de1004230904gf28fba76jdbf2008cb39a678b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<366053.25788.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <q2lecb172de1004260846z3955660dx1caad5178e512a2a@mail.gmail.com>

dear Erick,

I am opinion the case of Africa should constitute an exception. It's just a
blow of gong  but it seems to me that this situation is well
included/understood.

No Erick, I've reflected and raised a report high. Unfortunately, African
themselves do not worry. As for representativeness question , I think as
participation of individuals as well of government delegated, private sector
and International agencies is an option which deserves attention.
Generally, in  micro-economic implementation projects, collaboration with
these various institutions are often criteria of reliability.

As regards of Internet, this synergy become increasingly essential. It's
accordingly that I see MAG.


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/4/23 Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>

>  My question is very pointed. Are you suggesting that by the mere status
> of being a member of an underepresented African group, they should be
> elevated or treated specially?
> It would appear that they have been given opportunity but have chosen* not
> to take it. What am I missing?
>
> *I make no assumptions or judgment on that choice. It may well be that
> circumstances "at home" block that choice from being elected.
>
> --- On *Fri, 4/23/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC
> statement?
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 4:04 PM
>
>
>
> in my comprehension, MAG is a platform which gathers several actors
> belonging to several disciplines of university formation. One belongs to
> public sector, private sector or civil society.
>
> Since WSIS process , all those actors  had to work together. This
> experience is correctly capitalized in many developed countries and certain
> countries emerging but not sufficiently in majority of African countries.
> Africa contribution  in IGF process is however too weak even so appraise
> does not miss.
>
> One can plan to reinforce MAG but then it will be necessary to take account
> of all these parameters without going into reverse.
>
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>                           +243811980914
> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b.schombe at gmail.com>
> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
> niveau.
>
>
> 2010/4/23 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dogwallah at gmail.com>
> >
>
>> Baudouin,
>>
>> is it really the case that all MAG members represent their countries?  Are
>> they supposed to?  I thought they acted in individual capacity?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b.schombe at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness. Developped
>>> countries and certain emerging countries are very well represented within
>>> MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of their area and their
>>> respective countries. But a lot of number of African countries are not
>>> present or inactive within  MAG.
>>>
>>> Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity
>>> and credibility  require involvment and participation of all actors
>>> according to the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from
>>> Geneva Action Plan and Agenda of Tunis.
>>> However development of digital technology takes increasingly large
>>> proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very
>>> few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in
>>> Africa.
>>>
>>> Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on
>>> behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.
>>>
>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>>> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>>> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>>> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>>> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>>>
>>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>>>                           +243811980914
>>> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b.schombe at gmail.com>
>>> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
>>> niveau.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100426/e0d61413/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 11:48:02 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:48:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <q2lecb172de1004260846z3955660dx1caad5178e512a2a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <y2yecb172de1004230904gf28fba76jdbf2008cb39a678b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<366053.25788.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <q2lecb172de1004260846z3955660dx1caad5178e512a2a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <o2gecb172de1004260848s63940991m7f4dd3956183ee2b@mail.gmail.com>

 excuse me I correct the first sentence.




2010/4/26 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>

> dear Erick,
>
> I am opinion the case of Africa should NOT constitute an exception. It's
> just a blow of gong  but it seems to me that this situation is well
> included/understood.
>
> No Erick, I've reflected and raised a report high. Unfortunately, African
> themselves do not worry. As for representativeness question , I think as
> participation of individuals as well of government delegated, private sector
> and International agencies is an option which deserves attention.
> Generally, in  micro-economic implementation projects, collaboration with
> these various institutions are often criteria of reliability.
>
> As regards of Internet, this synergy become increasingly essential. It's
> accordingly that I see MAG.
>
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>                           +243811980914
> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
> niveau.
>
>
> 2010/4/23 Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
>
>  My question is very pointed. Are you suggesting that by the mere status
>> of being a member of an underepresented African group, they should be
>> elevated or treated specially?
>> It would appear that they have been given opportunity but have chosen* not
>> to take it. What am I missing?
>>
>> *I make no assumptions or judgment on that choice. It may well be that
>> circumstances "at home" block that choice from being elected.
>>
>> --- On *Fri, 4/23/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC
>> statement?
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>> Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 4:04 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> in my comprehension, MAG is a platform which gathers several actors
>> belonging to several disciplines of university formation. One belongs to
>> public sector, private sector or civil society.
>>
>> Since WSIS process , all those actors  had to work together. This
>> experience is correctly capitalized in many developed countries and certain
>> countries emerging but not sufficiently in majority of African countries.
>> Africa contribution  in IGF process is however too weak even so appraise
>> does not miss.
>>
>> One can plan to reinforce MAG but then it will be necessary to take
>> account of all these parameters without going into reverse.
>>
>>
>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>>
>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>>                           +243811980914
>> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b.schombe at gmail.com>
>> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
>> niveau.
>>
>>
>> 2010/4/23 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dogwallah at gmail.com>
>> >
>>
>>> Baudouin,
>>>
>>> is it really the case that all MAG members represent their countries?
>>> Are they supposed to?  I thought they acted in individual capacity?
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
>>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b.schombe at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness.
>>>> Developped countries and certain emerging countries are very well
>>>> represented within  MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of
>>>> their area and their respective countries. But a lot of number of African
>>>> countries are not present or inactive within  MAG.
>>>>
>>>> Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity
>>>> and credibility  require involvment and participation of all actors
>>>> according to the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from
>>>> Geneva Action Plan and Agenda of Tunis.
>>>> However development of digital technology takes increasingly large
>>>> proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very
>>>> few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in
>>>> Africa.
>>>>
>>>> Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on
>>>> behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.
>>>>
>>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>>>> COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>>>> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>>>> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>>>> GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
>>>>
>>>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
>>>>                           +243811980914
>>>> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=b.schombe at gmail.com>
>>>> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>>> siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
>>>> niveau.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100426/f9a36432/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Mon Apr 26 17:16:06 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
In-Reply-To: <q2lecb172de1004260846z3955660dx1caad5178e512a2a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <542221.27620.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I understand. Often we are faced with balancing good goals against each other. It is the free pass versus the achiever problem. If we indeed make this move to be more inclusive of those deserving for reasons other than a complete dedication to being involved do we dilute the value of a "seat at the table"? The answer is always yes, and so we must compensate in someother way those that have worked so hard to be included. 
 
In this case the "tradeoff" is easy. Those already participating and investing their efforts will be rewarded by the intrinsic value of a higher diversity and greater inclusiveness.
 
What we cannot do and must never do is fail to keep this accountable and transparent and very open, that that is exactly what we are doing.

--- On Mon, 4/26/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 3:46 PM


dear Erick,

I am opinion the case of Africa should constitute an exception. It's just a blow of gong  but it seems to me that this situation is well included/understood. 

No Erick, I've reflected and raised a report high. Unfortunately, African themselves do not worry. As for representativeness question , I think as participation of individuals as well of government delegated, private sector and International agencies is an option which deserves attention. 
Generally, in  micro-economic implementation projects, collaboration with these various institutions are often criteria of reliability. 

As regards of Internet, this synergy become increasingly essential. It's accordingly that I see MAG. 


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau.



2010/4/23 Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>






My question is very pointed. Are you suggesting that by the mere status of being a member of an underepresented African group, they should be elevated or treated specially?
It would appear that they have been given opportunity but have chosen* not to take it. What am I missing?
 
*I make no assumptions or judgment on that choice. It may well be that circumstances "at home" block that choice from being elected.

--- On Fri, 4/23/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 4:04 PM






in my comprehension, MAG is a platform which gathers several actors belonging to several disciplines of university formation. One belongs to  public sector, private sector or civil society. 

Since WSIS process , all those actors  had to work together. This experience is correctly capitalized in many developed countries and certain countries emerging but not sufficiently in majority of African countries. Africa contribution  in IGF process is however too weak even so appraise does not miss. 

One can plan to reinforce MAG but then it will be necessary to take account of all these parameters without going into reverse.

 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau.



2010/4/23 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>

Baudouin, 

is it really the case that all MAG members represent their countries?  Are they supposed to?  I thought they acted in individual capacity?
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel 





On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all, 

Arguments developed by Parminder are a very great obviousness. Developped countries and certain emerging countries are very well represented within  MAG. The defended positions reflect the concerns of their area and their respective countries. But a lot of number of African countries are not present or inactive within  MAG. 

Usually civil society members talk about their countries. IGF continuity and credibility  require involvment and participation of all actors according to the main trends of the implementation of WSIS resulting from  Geneva Action Plan and Agenda of Tunis. 
However development of digital technology takes increasingly large proportions and at high speed in some African countries.Paradoxically very few African political decision makers take part about Internet Governance in Africa. 

Parminder raises here most important point which deserves attention on behalf of African and other Members States of the United Nations.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau.



2010/4/23 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 









____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-----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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100426/fe15d0e8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Tue Apr 27 09:22:49 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:22:49 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] European Internet events
Message-ID: <30574476.5078.1272374569722.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d38>


Dear all

Please finf hereafter two announcements made by DG Information Society of the EC :
 
EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTInternet of Things Europe 2010 1 June 2010 - 2 June 2010 Brussels, Belgium
This event will bring together business leaders, consumer advocates, policy makers and entrepeneurs to explore the opportunities and risks offered by the Internet of Things to businesses and consumers, and how these will re-shape our interactions with the real and virtual worlds over the coming years. Neelie Kroes, Vice President and EU Commissioner for Digital Agenda, will be a keynote speaker at this event.
http://www.eu-ems.com/summary.asp?event_id=55&page_id=342

EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTEuropean Summit on the Future Internet 2 June 2010 - 3 June 2010 Luxembourg
This event aims to bring together visionaries, industrial experts and scientific specialists from around Europe, to present visions, discuss technological options, new service concepts, and to jointly examine how to optimize the opportunities ahead in the making of the Future Internet.
http://summit2010.uni.lu/

Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT-France

> Message du 25/04/10 17:14
> De : "Ginger Paque" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] OC meetings in Geneva May 10 and 11 IGC statement?
> 
> I think it is important to address these questions, and decide exactly what the IGC wants to say about the MAG.
> 
> Do we want to address the composition of the MAG? If so, exactly what needs to be done? 
> 
> Do we want to address the objective of the MAG? If so, what should it's goal be?
> 
> Do we want to address the operating procedures of the MAG? If so, is there a suggestion as to the way it should operate?
> 
> I think a short, concise, straightforward statement could be very effective. However, we need to know what we want to say. Can our MAG members and former MAG members please help here? How about others who are not happy with the way this has worked? Help us offer a solution, please.
> 
> Look forward to your concrete suggestions. Thanks!
> Ginger
> 
> On 4/23/2010 4:01 PM, McTim wrote: On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Developing countries are slow to realize the importance of MAG and the IGF as an aid to their Internet policy making efforts ?? If this is the case, why are the majority of IGF participants from developing regions? http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics but wasn't this also a much heard mission to build the capacity of countries/developing countries on IG? I never heard this. One builds the capacity of individuals, not nation states. I've been visiting both sides of the Internet now, the ICANN and the IGF. Guess what, IGF is the last thing many want to be fulfilling the mandate of giving advise, recommendations, interacting with other institutions on Internet issues Do you have any evidence of this? - guess who does want to stay in and play this role? I assume you are referring to the Internet technical community here? If what you are speculating is true, why would they continue to support the IGF financially? and to tell you the truth, I continue to see that the Internet is really affected by a couple of big pockets and misguidance of governance in various roles and the smaller nations being kept away from the real issues. Can you name the pockets, describe the misguidance and be more specific about which smaller nations are kept away from which issues? As Parminder points it out clearly, who's role would it be to guide the developing countries. Unless our MAG members have any other personal interests, I think we would all agree to the point's Parminder made. not me. We should have a strong stance with a statement here that should cover: 1. IGC's say on the continuation of the MAG 2. Improvement in terms of representation - more members on the MAG from developing countries - especially governments I've just counted. there are ~50% OF MAG members from developing countries. What percentage would you consider fair? Why on earth would the CS IGC call for greater governmental representation on the MAG? We should be calling for more CS types, no? 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100427/f788d62c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Apr 27 14:45:04 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:45:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] Vilnius  workshops
Message-ID: <4BD730B0.2050209@wzb.eu>



Hi all,

below an email from Markus Kummer with information on workshops and 
other meetings for Vilnius.

Short version: 90 proposal for workshops have been submitted and posted 
on the IGF website, alas they need to be cut down to a total of 50 or 60.

jeanette


The list of all
workshop proposals has been posted earlier today. In total, we have
close to 90  proposal for workshops / best practices sessions. We will
continue to do some light editing, but rest assured: no new proposals
will be added.

As in previous years, we are preparing a scoring sheet that we will send
out to the list, to assist you in determining whether the proposals
fulfill the various criteria we have agreed on, such as relevance and
diversity in terms of geographical, gender and stakeholder participation
as well as diversity of viewpoints.

Please bear in mind that we will also receive  proposals for open forum
from relevant organizations and national/regional IGF type initiatives.

  From a scheduling point of view, we should be able to accommodate a
maximum of around 80 workshops and other events, including dynamic
coalition meetings and open forums, bearing in mind that this year's
slots have been lengthened from 90 minutes to two hours, thus reducing
the number of slots available. This means that the number of workshops
will need be reduced to a total of between 50 and 60, depending on the
number of other events. Such a number would also be in line with the
feedback we received in last February's stock-taking session..

Best regards
Markus.



  > Thanks for these details, Markus.  Without wanting to put any
  > additional pressure on you, I wonder if you could let us know before
  > too long whether there were a large number of workshop proposals,
  > and what your plans are for having them posted to the website?  It
  > would be helpful to know how large a task we face in a couple of weeks.
  >
  > Looking forward to seeing you
  >
  > Bill
  >
  > On 2010-04-26, at 9:49 AM, Markus KUMMER wrote:
  >
  >
  > Dear colleagues,
  >
  > It is my pleasure to inform you that Under-Secretary-General Sha has
  > addressed an open letter to all stakeholders, inviting them to the
  > Vilnius meeting. You will note that he has accepted the overall
  > theme and the agenda we prepared at our last meeting. As in previous
  > years, the invitation is posted on our Web site.
  >
  > You will recall that we mentioned the possibility of an informal
  > brainstorming dinner on 11 May. In order to make a reservation for
  > the right number of participants I would be grateful if you could
  > confirm whether you are able to attend by 5 May end of business.
  > Please send the email to our generic secretariat address: igf at unog.ch
  > . Unfortunately, we do not have a budget for inviting you to dinner,
  > so it will be on a self-pay basis (unless a generous sponsor decided
  > to pick up the bill...). We will let you know the location once we
  > have a clear picture as regards the number of participants.
  >
  > It seems now that our Chairman will be able to stay until shortly
  > after 1500 hours on 12 May. I suggest nevertheless sticking to the
  > schedule I had proposed earlier, that is 0900-1200 and 1330-1530.
  > This means that we will have (almost) a full working day on 12 May.
  >
  > In addition to the MAG meeting there will be an information session
  > on the IGF in the framework of the WSIS Forum. The invited me to
  > prepare a programme and I thought it would be best to organize a
  > multistakeholder panel, similar to the orientation session we had in
  > Sharm. The following MAG members kindly agreed to be on the panel:
  > Christine, Nurani. Katitza and Waudo. In addition, the Alex Ntoko,
  > Head of the ITU Corporate Strategy Division, will give an IGO
  > perspective. You are of course cordially invited to attend the
  > meeting and actively engage in the discussions.
  >
  > Best regards
  > Markus
  > _______________________________________________
  > igf_members mailing list
  > igf_members at intgovforum.org
  > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100427/7cd5bd0c/attachment.ksh>

From gadi at anime.org  Wed Apr 28 23:28:13 2010
From: gadi at anime.org (Gadi Evron)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:28:13 +0300
Subject: [governance] the Estonian cyber war incident of 2007 - A
 socio-psychological analysis
Message-ID: <9FECBD91-EC23-4FA3-ACFB-426F880B44FC@anime.org>

Hello,

In the past year I have been working in collaboration with  
psychologists Robert Cialdini and Rosanna Guadagno on a paper  
analyzing some of what I saw from the social perspective in Estonia,  
when I wrote the post-mortem analysis for the 2007 attacks, but didn't  
understand at the time.

We analyze how the Russian-speaking population online was manipulated  
to attack Estonia (and Georgia) in the "cyber war" incidents, and how  
it could happen again (regardless of if any actor is behind it).

I am especially happy that I could research this from a perspective  
outside of that of technology or political science, and while this is  
a negative example it certainly comes to show the power individuals do  
have for activism on the Internet, and how it can also be abused.

Article on El Reg:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/28/web_war_one_anonymity/

Paper (for download with pay :( ):
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2009.0134

Thanks, and any comments appreciated,

     Gadi.

-- 
Gadi Evron.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Apr 30 05:22:13 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:22:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
In-Reply-To: <94A04977-B416-4E68-A4DC-F47C4A66D800@acm.org>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
 <F596B723-8C9C-45BF-943F-FD2A379DF4F7@arin.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7E13360@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <m2qf65fb55e1004050638habf8f24bs32132b7dcfa60c61@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BBADA67.2060606@itforchange.net>
 <n2qf65fb55e1004060043z8fb71d59w6e7eadd4dea848de@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BBB0E59.4030502@cafonso.ca>
 <g2hf65fb55e1004060618oaed661e6idbe7fec6146fa8c@mail.gmail.com>
 <94A04977-B416-4E68-A4DC-F47C4A66D800@acm.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100430103556.06855310@jefsey.com>

At 16:58 07/04/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2010, at 09:18, McTim wrote:
> > I know many on this list have had some unpleasant experiences with
> > ICANN/ISOC, etc and have lost some faith along the way, but that
> > doesn't mean they are not CS, at least, not according to the LSE, et.
> > al.
>
>i think we have to be careful in these designations.

Amen.

>- The internet community wants to define itself as a separate leg of 
>the multistakeholder process, so to call them CS might thwart their 
>own interests in being something other then that.

Correct. The slow process of identifying the network, usage, user 
governance and adminance from progresses achieved everywhere calls 
for enhanced precise definitions. We will get them progressively from 
clarification ICANN and ISOC (ex. IAB) have to make, irt. the 
Multilingual Network due to the architectural extensions it introduces.

>-  While the I* are non profitare non profit organization , it is 
>their membership and focus that really determines whether they are 
>CS or not.  e.g. the ICC is a non profit, but since it entire focus 
>is commerce, we don't group them with CS.

The more we go, the more we go by scope and needs. Once the notion of 
adminance (common system administration) is better evaluated, there 
will be some natural reshuffling. For example, enhanced cooperations 
are a true need for adminance - as dynamic coalitions are for governance.

>- ICANN still declares itself as a private sector led - and by 
>private sector the mean business.  other then that they try to wear 
>the mantle of multistakeholder giving both CS and Governments a seat 
>at the table (more then most organization other then the IGF ).  so 
>i would have a hard time considering them CS.

When you consider it, ICANN was designed as a "user" organization 
(50% of the BoD). It is now a TLD syndicate. ALAC's involvement is 
not included enough.

>- ISOC is more of a people's organization though it does have some 
>large private sector donors.  And except for the fact that they have 
>been vocal in demanding that the Internet Technical Community be a 
>stakeholder in its own right, I might have been able to consider 
>them CS.  I would probably put the RIRs in this same categories.

ISOC and RIRs are true adminance organizations. However, the 
IAB/IRTF/IESG, IETF, RIRs articulation and purposes are to clarifie. 
Also, depending on IETF (IAB response to my appeal after IESG's) 
decision regarding the Internet Usage Interface (IUI) responsibility 
we may or not restore ATLARGE as an independent IUCG backsupport.

>so while some of the I* is CSish, I do not think we can consider 
>them CS. of course the individuals who work for them can, in their 
>own capacity be CS, as long as those are the interests they 
>personally align themselves with.  and then yes, they should be open 
>about where their support comes from.
>
>On 6 Apr 2010, at 05:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> >  If you disagree with them about anything, theny won't even 
> consider funding your research on an IG topic.
>
>so this is why i get so little funding?
>
>disclosure: currently only funded by the university in Luleå based 
>on a grant from the EC - but hoping for more real soon now.  does 
>the fact that I will take funding from anyone i don't despise who is 
>wiling to fund me to do what i want to do make me less CSish?

I think we have a real identification problem. CS is a governance 
issue. Internet (smart/lead) Users, i.e. individual people having the 
need and the capacity of modifying the network to their common 
advantage have still different motivations, needs, influence, 
experience , etc. They may share in the various dynamic coalitions 
and enhanced cooperations. The idea of associating CS with academic 
research is wrong. Political parties, consumer organizations, people 
defense associations, trade-unions, etc. are CS. Moreover than RFC 
3935 acknowledges innovation does not come from IETF.

disclosure: as an Internet Users Political and Technological Catalyst 
I self-finance for 20 years. The good is that I am free, the bad is 
that we waste time.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Apr 30 05:22:02 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:22:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1E@SUEX07-MBX-04.a
 d.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net>
 <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com>
 <4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100430111631.06855458@jefsey.com>

At 19:43 03/03/2010, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Yes!
>________________________________________
>
>Why not replace the horrible word "multistakeholderism" with "pluralism"?

They do not have exactly the same meaning.

- pluralism is fuzzy.It goes well for users and therefore for dynamic 
colaition, user-demands presentation;
- multistakeholderism si more precise and more adequate for enhanced 
cooperation where there should be clear responsibility sharing.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jogray at gmail.com  Fri Apr 30 06:33:36 2010
From: jogray at gmail.com (Joey Gray)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:33:36 -0700
Subject: [governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd
 World
In-Reply-To: <h2o83b95841004181324h9817458cqfb1aa0b2cc4680d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <63AF71453C17422E98E6F2DAC69B0C22@userPC>
	 <179770.88840.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <tHL66OnqPauLFATI@perry.co.uk> <4BBA1BC8.60904@wzb.eu>
	 <v2n83b95841004081919he65ab6d8gff6af84e73523927@mail.gmail.com>
	 <g2xfa468ac01004090328m2dfbf42chb36078b0df6a6a5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <t2p76bcc9191004170805x38e2f39cve92e378f6f044090@mail.gmail.com>
	 <h2o83b95841004181324h9817458cqfb1aa0b2cc4680d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <r2y76bcc9191004300333q26bdd6efnba30b3cfad349795@mail.gmail.com>

You're welcome, Salanieta. By the way, the original Washington Post article
Michael forwarded has either been moved or may no longer be available.

Here's a link to the entire hearing - 160 min. of Bills Clinton & Gates
testifying March 10, 2010 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
about "Building on Success: New Directions in Global Health." I didn't find
the apology to Haiti yet. If someone does, send us the time log for that
part, okay? http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/20100310_2/ From the
parts I watched so far, this is a breathtakingly expansive discussion worth
listening to in full.

Joey

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Joey. I enjoyed watching this clip. We also have food
> security issues in Asia Pacific - with "rice shortages" and have to
> deal with balancing food imports.
>
> On 4/18/10, Joey Gray <jogray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Greetings All, Semi-related (by contrast), here is the story of another
> > Caribbean island's  generations of dependence, hunger, and independence
> --
> > Cuba:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuipXzxPFY   I just learned about
> > Kitchen Gardeners, which looks like a cool resource
> > http://kitchengardeners.org/ Joey
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> I have been following this discussion with interest, particularly as I
> >> belong to Saint Lucia, one of the banana producing countries of the
> >> Windward
> >> Islands in the Caribbean.
> >> This morning I read this article
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8610427.stm which may interest some
> of
> >> you. It also deals with the protection of local agriculture, in this
> case
> >> in
> >> some African countries, and in this case using intellectual property
> >> rights,
> >> specifically patents.
> >> Can someone advise me please - Ginger?? - should I copy in the text of
> the
> >> article or is the URL sufficient?
> >> Deirdre
> >>
> >> On 8 April 2010 22:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Jeanette,
> >>>
> >>> Your practical question reminds of something I may have read somewhere
> >>> but can't for the life of me remember, it's about how consumers in the
> >>> West post Copenhagen discussions are into buying green produce and
> >>> chances are if they are consuming something that took so long to get
> >>> to their country, it would have have not been environmentally
> >>> efficient and consumers would soon rather purchase commodity from
> >>> neighbouring region.
> >>>
> >>> I am reminded of bottled water how I watched a documentary (rerun)
> >>> where it said that it takes 8 litres of water to make one bottled
> >>> water etc and how people should just use filters and drink tap water.
> >>>
> >>> Where do we draw the line and how do we trade efficiently and be
> >>> mindful of not trampling on others just because we are giants and we
> >>> can.
> >>>
> >>> I have chillie growing in my yard in Suva, Fiji Islands and would love
> >>> to send you some but quarrantine probably won't allow it.  In Fiji,
> >>> people also dry chillies to preserve them.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Sala
> >>> On 4/6/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> So here's a practical question: Looking in my own refrigerator just
> >>> now,
> >>> >> I have noticed most of a pack of chillies (cost £0.50) from Morocco,
> >>> >> expiry date 22Mar and they have indeed grown some interesting
> looking
> >>> >> mold. But I can't eat chillies quickly enough. So what should I do -
> >>> not
> >>> >> buy them again (smaller packets not available in that shop),
> >>> >
> >>> > You should freeze them. That way they last for many months without
> >>> > losing their flavour. You defrost them within less than a minute by
> >>> > putting them under hot water.
> >>> >
> >>> > and who
> >>> >> should public policy seek to protect - Moroccan farmers, or Moroccan
> >>> >> consumers - in the event that the UK market for chillies reduces,
> >>> taking
> >>> >> with it the wholesale price.
> >>> >
> >>> > Aren't Moroccan farmers also consumers? I wonder if this is really an
> >>> > either/ or situation. Besides, there might be good reasons to produce
> >>> > and buy food locally even if this implies higher prices. Avoiding
> long
> >>> > distant transport, might be one, desirable qualities such as taste or
> >>> > organic production methods might be reasons and poverty is certainly
> >>> > also one.
> >>> >
> >>> > 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
> >>> >
> >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >>> P.O.Box 17862
> >>> Suva
> >>> Fiji Islands
> >>>
> >>> Cell: +679 9982851
> >>> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
> >>>
> >>> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> “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
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> P.O.Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji Islands
>
> Cell: +679 9982851
> Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
>
> "Wisdom is far better than riches."
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100430/5132dc5c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t