From pouzin at well.com Wed Dec 1 05:47:14 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:47:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> Message-ID: In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly legitimate cyrillic cctld. ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 1 08:02:51 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:02:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Pouzin (well) wrote: > In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly legitimate > cyrillic cctld. > > ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their illegitimate > "power". ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS Stability Panel for that, no? More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already totally confusing by > their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 from 8, they should get > better glasses or font sets. It seems I will need new glasses soon! -- 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 avri at acm.org Wed Dec 1 08:15:25 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:15:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> Message-ID: <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote: > > > ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS > Stability Panel for that, no? And how is that not ICANN making the decision? Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard. But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies something it shouldn't. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 08:32:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:32:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote: > >> >> >> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS >> Stability Panel for that, no? > > > And how is that not ICANN making the decision? I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the decision. > > Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard. > > But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these outsourced entities.  But by ICANN process every decisions is eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies something it shouldn't. It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board reverse the DNS Stability Panel. I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong. -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Dec 1 08:47:40 2010 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:47:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> Message-ID: <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg> On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote: >> >> >> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS >> Stability Panel for that, no? >> >> And how is that not ICANN making the decision? > I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the decision. > The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous, by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there MAY be confusion. >> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard. >> >> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies something it shouldn't. > It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board > reverse the DNS Stability Panel. > > I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong. > This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention, because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion, in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues). Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal. It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public pools indicated this is not the case. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 1 09:13:16 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:13:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca> Dear people, Writing in my personal capacity and *not* as a member of CGI.br, I agree with Avri that the decision making processes within Icann are frequently questionable, and I defend the right of Bulgaria to choose the IDN ".бг" for their ccTLD, on the additional grounds that the it is not a case comparable to the "py" one, notwithstanding the visual acuity of users. fraternal regards --c.a. On 12/01/2010 11:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS >>> Stability Panel for that, no? >>> >>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision? >> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the >> decision. >> > > The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will > not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their > subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous, > by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there > MAY be confusion. > >>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does >>> not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard. >>> >>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and >>> cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these >>> outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is >>> eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can >>> probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies >>> something it shouldn't. >> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board >> reverse the DNS Stability Panel. >> >> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong. >> > This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff > has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is > already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention, > because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion, > in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues). > > Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their > opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on > this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal. > > It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens > to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more > political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian > Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party > doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public > pools indicated this is not the case. > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ==================================== 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Dec 1 09:26:03 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:26:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1251?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.?= =?WINDOWS-1251?Q?=E1=E3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg> <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Being an ex-ALAC member and still engaged as one of ALSs of AtLarge, I also question why ".бг" is not acceptable as IDN ccTLD for Bulgaria. EVEN if non-Bulgaria people like myself does not understand, at the onset at least, what it means, many will have similar problem with ”中国", "中國", "台湾", "臺湾" etc, who cannot read Chinese characters. But those who do understand what ".бг" are the targeted users and that is, in my view, perfectly understandable. By introducing IDNs, we will face the expanded diversity, and for us it's a good thing to learn, not to worry about. As someone already pointed out, IF there already exists ".6b", then the story can be different. But that is not the case. I also think the decision by the part of ICANN is, in a larger view, ICANN's decision, if not the final one. Especially the DNS stability panel is authorized for their work by ICANN Board, and there is no appeal process there. This is not as coordinator, but purely speaking for myself. izumi 2010/12/1 Carlos A. Afonso : > Dear people, > > Writing in my personal capacity and *not* as a member of CGI.br, I agree > with Avri that the decision making processes within Icann are frequently > questionable, and I defend the right of Bulgaria to choose the IDN ".бг" for > their ccTLD, on the additional grounds that the it is not a case comparable > to the "py" one, notwithstanding the visual acuity of users. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 12/01/2010 11:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS >>>> Stability Panel for that, no? >>>> >>>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision? >>> >>> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the >>> decision. >>> >> >> The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will >> not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their >> subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous, >> by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there >> MAY be confusion. >> >>>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does >>>> not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard. >>>> >>>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and >>>> cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these >>>> outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is >>>> eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can >>>> probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies >>>> something it shouldn't. >>> >>> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board >>> reverse the DNS Stability Panel. >>> >>> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong. >>> >> This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff >> has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is >> already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention, >> because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion, >> in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues). >> >> Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their >> opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on >> this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal. >> >> It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens >> to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more >> political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian >> Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party >> doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public >> pools indicated this is not the case. >> >> Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 1 11:20:46 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:20:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?SXMgcmVhbGx5IEJ1bGdhcmlhbiBD?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?eXJpbGxpYyAuGyRCJ1InVBsoQiAoLmJnKSBzaW1pbGFyIHRvIG90aGVy?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?IExhdGluIGNjVExEcz8=?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg> <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EC3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> This discussion highlights yet again how ICANN undermines itself by having to defend decisions made without transparent and objective procedures in place. I personally don't see how this decision does not get reversed, since the core issue seems to be the visual acuity of one or members of the DNS Stability Council, and/or ICANN staff who don't speak or read Bulgarian. Who I guess are not the target market. The staff/consultants problems are however more easily fixed than yet another non-transparent ICANN process. Lee ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:26 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Daniel Kalchev Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs? Being an ex-ALAC member and still engaged as one of ALSs of AtLarge, I also question why ".бг" is not acceptable as IDN ccTLD for Bulgaria. EVEN if non-Bulgaria people like myself does not understand, at the onset at least, what it means, many will have similar problem with ”中国", "中國", "台湾", "臺湾" etc, who cannot read Chinese characters. But those who do understand what ".бг" are the targeted users and that is, in my view, perfectly understandable. By introducing IDNs, we will face the expanded diversity, and for us it's a good thing to learn, not to worry about. As someone already pointed out, IF there already exists ".6b", then the story can be different. But that is not the case. I also think the decision by the part of ICANN is, in a larger view, ICANN's decision, if not the final one. Especially the DNS stability panel is authorized for their work by ICANN Board, and there is no appeal process there. This is not as coordinator, but purely speaking for myself. izumi 2010/12/1 Carlos A. Afonso : > Dear people, > > Writing in my personal capacity and *not* as a member of CGI.br, I agree > with Avri that the decision making processes within Icann are frequently > questionable, and I defend the right of Bulgaria to choose the IDN ".бг" for > their ccTLD, on the additional grounds that the it is not a case comparable > to the "py" one, notwithstanding the visual acuity of users. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 12/01/2010 11:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS >>>> Stability Panel for that, no? >>>> >>>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision? >>> >>> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the >>> decision. >>> >> >> The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will >> not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their >> subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous, >> by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there >> MAY be confusion. >> >>>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does >>>> not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard. >>>> >>>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and >>>> cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these >>>> outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is >>>> eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can >>>> probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies >>>> something it shouldn't. >>> >>> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board >>> reverse the DNS Stability Panel. >>> >>> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong. >>> >> This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff >> has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is >> already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention, >> because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion, >> in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues). >> >> Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their >> opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on >> this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal. >> >> It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens >> to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more >> political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian >> Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party >> doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public >> pools indicated this is not the case. >> >> Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 pwilson at apnic.net Wed Dec 1 20:07:06 2010 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:07:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> Message-ID: <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of domain names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and other forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well before IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda. The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a domain name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right people. The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser enhancements which make friendly use of that information, is all part of ensuring that users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name confusion. With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view [sic] that new TLDs actually have some value in their own right... Speaking for myself only. Paul. --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" wrote: > In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly > legitimate cyrillic cctld. > > ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their > illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already > totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 > from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Dec 1 21:37:28 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:37:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3?= In-Reply-To: <1291151781.24225.1407957667@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1291151781.24225.1407957667@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Hi George, While playing peekaboo with ICANN you might investigate other options: a- setup a Bulgarian root, b- contact an open root server for hosting .бг, c- file a complaint before the European Commission for abuse of monopolistic position by ICANN. Ok, option c is not a fast track. But it offers the opportunity to aggregate a series of other abuses, like delays, unjustified fees, lack of accountability, conflicts of interests, thwarting competition, devious procedures, etc.. Other European organizations may very well join Bulgaria in the case. Cheers - - - On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:16 PM, George Todoroff wrote: > Thanks to everybody for the replies. > > According to article IV, section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, the > "Reconsideration Request" is only for ICANN board or staff action / > inaction. As far as I know, the DNS Stability panel is neither part of the > ICANN board, nor a part of the staff. > > The "Independent Review" is also for any board decisions. > > I see no way how to trigger those procedures now. Maybe only if the ICANN > board reviews the comments from the fast-track review public comment period, > and does nothing - then Bulgaria will be able to start the reconsideration > request for "inaction". > > -- > Cheers, > George Todoroff > george_todoroff at imap.cc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Dec 1 22:49:58 2010 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:19:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland security pressure Message-ID: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest of the world. regards, Guru http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon#cablegate WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland security pressure Site hosting leaked US embassy cables is ousted from American servers as senator calls for boycott of WikiLeaks by companies Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 December 2010 19.59 GMT WikiLeaks's website cablegate.wikileaks.org, which was hosted by Amazon. The United States struck its first blow against WikiLeaks today after Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in an apparent reaction to heavy political pressure. The main website and a sub-site devoted to the diplomatic documents were unavailable from the US and Europe on Wednesday, as Amazon servers refused to acknowledge requests for data. The plug was pulled as the influential senator and chairman of the homeland security committee Joe Lieberman called for a boycott of the site by US companies. "(Amazon's) decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material," he said in a statement. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them." WikiLeaks tweeted in response: "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe." The development came amid increasingly angry and polarised political opinion in America over WikiLeaks, with some conservatives calling for the organisation's founder, Julian Assange, to be executed as a spy. Availability of his website has been patchy since Sunday, when it started to come under a series of internet-based attacks by unknown hackers. WikiLeaks dealt with the attacks in part by moving to servers run by Amazon Web Services, which is self-service. Amazon.com would not comment on its relationship with WikiLeaks or whether it forced the site to leave. Messages seeking comment from WikiLeaks were not immediately returned. The fury building up among rightwingers in the US, ranging from the potential Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to conservative blog sites such as Red State, contrasts with a measured response from the Obama administration. The White House, the state department and the Pentagon continued to denounce the leaks, describing them as "despicable". But senior administration officials, with a sense of weary resignation, also called on people to put the leaks into context and insisted they had not done serious damage to US relations. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, interviewed on television, shrugged aside as "ridiculous" a call by Assange, interviewed by Time magazine, via Skype from an undisclosed location, for the resignation of the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, over an order to spy on the United Nations. "I'm not entirely sure why we care about the opinion of one guy with one website," Gibbs said. "Our foreign policy and the interests of this country are far stronger than his one website." John Kerry, the Democratic head of the Senate foreign relations committee, on Sunday denounced the leaks but he sounded more sanguine at an event in Washington on Tuesday night. He said there was a "silver lining" in that it was now clear where everyone stood on Iran. "Things that I have heard from the mouths of King Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] and Hosni Mubarak [Egyptian president] and others are now quite public," Kerry said. He went on to say there was a "consensus on Iran". But others, particularly rightwingers, are seeking retribution, with Assange as the prime target. Legal experts in the US were divided over whether the US could successfully prosecute Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act. Sceptics said that the US protections for journalists would make such a prosecution difficult and also cited pragmatic issues, such as the difficulty of extraditing Assange. Huckabee, who was among the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and is likely to stand again in 2012, told the Politico website: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty." His later comments suggest he had in mind Bradley Manning, the US private in Iraq who is suspected of leaking the information and is under arrest in Virginia, rather than Assange. Another potential Republican candidate for the presidency, Sarah Palin, had earlier called for Assange to be hunted down. Conservative blogsites and commentators are full of ire directed at Assange, and criticism of the Obama administration for its seeming inability to do anything about it. Typical is a blog by lexington_concord on Red State, a popular rightwing site, in which the writers says Assange is a spy. "Under the traditional rules of engagement he is thus subject to summary execution and my preferred course of action would [be] for Assange to find a small calibre round in the back of his head." The attorney general, Eric Holder, earlier this week hinted at legal action but did not clarify whether his words were aimed at Manning or Assange. A department of justice spokeswoman failed to clarify this yesterday: "He [Holder] said the department would pursue those to be found violating the law." She added she was not commenting on the scope or direction of the investigation. The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, interviewed on Fox, suggested Holder's reference had been to Assange. Asked why the US was not mounting a cyberattack on WikiLeaks, Morrell said the disclosures were awkward and embarrassing but these were not sufficient grounds for offensive action. He referred back to comments made the previous day by the defence secretary, Robert Gates, who attempted to put the leaks in perspective. Gates said: "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for US foreign policy: I think fairly modest." A former defence secretary under Bill Clinton, William Cohen, echoed Gates, saying that the information was probably not fatal. Cohen joined the chorus calling for Assange to be prosecuted, provided he can be found. "He may be hiding in a cave with Osama bin Laden. We don't know where he is but I am confident we will find him in the near future. He will be arrested and brought to justice," Cohen said. Ruth Wedgwood, a former federal prosecutor and Johns Hopkins law professor, said, in an email exchange, that Assange, an Australian, could prosecuted. "A person who steals or knowingly receives and transmits protected national security information is not exempt from US criminal law merely because he is foreigner. The Espionage Act has been used to prosecute foreign defendants as well as Americans. "Freedom of the press and the First Amendment would not shelter someone who deliberately steals tens of thousands of closely-held communications containing national security and defence information, and wantonly publishes them to both friends and foes alike, with heedless disregard for the damage that is caused." Floyd Abrams, the constitutional expert who has argued before the supreme court on the First Amendment, which enshrines press freedom, was more sceptical. He said the government had a plausible case under the Espionage Act, which is phrased very broadly. The government had looked in 1971 at prosecution of the New York Times over the Pentagon Papers leak and decided against. "Here I think it is a closer call. The documents are much more current and they have the potential to do more harm, for example the reference to the King of Saudi Arabia urging the US to bomb Iran," Abrams said in an phone interview. "I think for the government it must be a close call. On the one hand, the leaks are of such magnitude and involve topics of such sensitivity and currency, it must be tempting to consider prosecution but on the other hand the government would be forced to address difficult and sensitive issues of whether a journalist could be accused of violating the law." He added that Assange was not a journalist but does some of the things associated with journalism. Another legal expert, Scott Silliman, a professor at the Duke University School of Law, said: "A US prosecution of Assange would be possible, but it would be fraught with problems for the government. The applicable statute, section 793(e) of the Espionage Act, is somewhat ambiguous when dealing with a case of this type where the accused claims to be part of or allied with the media. Further, there will probably be difficulties in having Assange extradited to the United States for trial." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 1 23:48:15 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:48:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland In-Reply-To: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Hello Guru, 2010/12/2 Guru गुरु : > It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest of > the world. I'm not sure this is a FOE issue. If I hacked IT4Change system and published all documents of yours whether sensitive or no, would that be my right to FOE? I was actually very surprised that Amazon took this into their Cloud in the first place. I am not surprised that they caved to pressure however. This is not to say that the documents are unavailable however. Now that folk are torrenting them, they will be available online for a long, long time. -- 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 Thu Dec 2 00:43:20 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:13:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs Message-ID: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> Hi All A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus on the following two questions. 1. What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? 2. What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international cooperation in these areas? IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is enclosed. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EC statement 2 - IT for Change- 301110.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 159386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 02:27:20 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:27:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus > on the following two questions. > > What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not > being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? > What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international > cooperation in these areas? > > IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is > enclosed. I find it highly ironic that your organisation wants both FOE as indicated in an earlier mail by Guru AND and a new, powerful, dynamic GIC which would (IMHO) stop folk like wikileaks. I submit that you can't have both. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 2 00:58:50 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:58:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote: > A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus on the following two questions. > > What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? > What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international cooperation in these areas? Thanks, I missed this. Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions? It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions. > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 03:37:14 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:37:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland In-Reply-To: <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net> References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Hi, 2010/12/2 Guru गुरु : > McTim wrote: > > Hello Guru, > > 2010/12/2 Guru गुरु : > > > It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest of > the world. > > > I'm not sure this is a FOE issue. > > If I hacked IT4Change system and published all documents of yours > whether sensitive or no, would that be my right to FOE? > I note that you haven't answered my question. > > The point is, how does a western private entity (Amazon) censor information > on basis of political pressures in the US, without any due process of law > being followed - is this not violation of FOE? I don't know if it was political pressure, more of the threat of a boycott. the decision to take wikileaks as a hosting customer clearly wasn't thought through very well. Was it a violation of FOE or censorship? probably not. If it was, then doesn't this add more weight to the argument NOT to give governments greater control over Internet policy issues? If one sees the USG docs as USG Intellectual Property, then its easy to see how the amazon.com domain could have been seized, as we saw in other cases last week. Chilling indeed for a corporation like Amazon. > > Secondly, Govts have a larger accountability to the public - this is now > popular in many countries as 'freedom of information' or 'right to > information' where the public has a right to government information, with > specified exceptions - so comparing USG to IT for Change is not useful. Most of this information would have been blacked out in any FOI request release...or just not made available period. My point is that if your org has sensitive (or not) information, do you not have an interest in having it not released to the public? Would you not be a tad upset if all of your emails for example were put online by a hacker? I think you might. -- 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Dec 2 02:20:34 2010 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:50:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland In-Reply-To: References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net> McTim wrote: > Hello Guru, > > 2010/12/2 Guru गुरु : > >> It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest of >> the world. >> > > I'm not sure this is a FOE issue. > > If I hacked IT4Change system and published all documents of yours > whether sensitive or no, would that be my right to FOE? > The point is, how does a western private entity (Amazon) censor information on basis of political pressures in the US, without _any due process of law being followed _- is this not violation of FOE? Secondly, Govts have a larger accountability to the public - this is now popular in many countries as 'freedom of information' or 'right to information' where the public has a right to government information, with specified exceptions - so comparing USG to IT for Change is not useful. > I was actually very surprised that Amazon took this into their Cloud > in the first place. I am not surprised that they caved to pressure > however. > what is the nature of this pressure and caving in, how does it fit with the 'foe' prescriptions to the rest of world. > This is not to say that the documents are unavailable however. Now > that folk are torrenting them, they will be available online for a > long, long time. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Thu Dec 2 04:34:12 2010 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:34:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D0=B1=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> Message-ID: <1291282452.4cf768140d494@gold.itu.ch> Dear All, I find this article from CircleID http://www.circleid.com/posts/string_similarity_case_of_the_bulgarian_cyrillic_idn_vs_brazil_cctld/ interesting. The author Vassil Petev raised the controverse between bulgarian cyrillic idn and brazil cctld and asked ICANN to consider the context in which the similar strings are used. Thank you all and regards, -- ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim, Comoros representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Ingénieur Télécoms en Transmission, Réseaux et Commutation Chef du Département Études et Projets, Autorité Nationale de Régulation des TIC (ANRTIC) - Union des Comores, (+269) 334 37 06 (Mobile Moroni) - ID Skype: attoukarim Quoting "Pouzin (well)" : > In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly > legitimate > cyrillic cctld. > > ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their > illegitimate > "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already totally confusing > by > their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 from 8, they should get > better glasses or font sets. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From petko.kolev49 at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 09:55:57 2010 From: petko.kolev49 at gmail.com (Petko Kolev) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:55:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> Message-ID: Dear All, I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important: http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from today) Yours, Petko Bulgarian IT Users Group On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of domain > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and other > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well before > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda. > > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a domain > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right people. >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser enhancements > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of ensuring that > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name confusion. > > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view [sic] that > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right... > > Speaking for myself only. > > Paul. > > > > > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" > wrote: > >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly >> legitimate cyrillic cctld. >> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                       > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Dec 2 11:53:24 2010 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:23:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> McTim wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus >> on the following two questions. >> >> What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not >> being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? >> What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international >> cooperation in these areas? >> >> IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is >> enclosed. >> > > I find it highly ironic that your organisation wants both FOE as > indicated in an earlier mail by Guru AND and a new, powerful, dynamic > GIC which would (IMHO) stop folk like wikileaks. > > I submit that you can't have both. > > Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking the constant position of govt = evil is able to defend infomation being censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point. Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan, let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down? Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an international structure/process -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 2 12:08:18 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:08:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/2 Guru गुरु : > McTim wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Hi All > > A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus > on the following two questions. > > What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not > being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? > What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international > cooperation in these areas? > > IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is > enclosed. > > > I find it highly ironic that your organisation wants both FOE as > indicated in an earlier mail by Guru AND and a new, powerful, dynamic > GIC which would (IMHO) stop folk like wikileaks. > > I submit that you can't have both. > > > > Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking > the constant position of govt = evil I've never taken that position. I just don't want to give them any more control than they already have in IG issues. is able to defend infomation being > censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond I don't think I've ever defended censorship, if you have interpreted my statements as such, perhaps you should read them again. > processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point. > > Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this > unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan, > let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down? Perhaps, if that meant losing business to a boycott from those economies. > Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an > international structure/process Neither. An international structure would not have prevented a government (the USG in this case) from (allegedly) putting the squeeze on a corporation based in their territory. As we have seen the USG is perfectly capable of seizing domains without resorting to any strings in re: IANA/ICANN. As I have said many times before, i'd like a "free-floating ICANN", accountable to its governing board. I see no need for any governmental interference, whether from the USG or any other. Are you going to answer my question, (to wit; Can I steal your documents and publish them online as part of my FOE?) ...or should I give up? -- 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 avri at psg.com Thu Dec 2 12:26:07 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:26:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> Hi, I find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks and the upcoming martyrdom of Assange. I do not find it particularly ironic that a company is pressured to pull down the website in this extreme environment where most all of the countries of the world are screaming for his head and willing to get it in any way they can. I think it is highly ironic that the first time Interpol cares about a rape, I mean the quest to question someone over a possible case of rape and sexual abuse, enough to make someone Most Wanted. If only they cared about all possible rapes and cases of sexual abuse with that degree of urgency. Normally I have a guilty until proven innocent view on accusations of rape (I know, this is a character fault) but in this case the happenstance of the accusations and the wikileaks Iraq papers, and now the ratcheting up when the cables are leaked make me somewhat suspicious. In fact I see this as terrible gender exploitation by the powers that be. Can't wait to see the insanity when they start leaking about the banks, probably accuse him of pedophilia. To answer your question, i think almost any server in the world would have been pressured to pull down wikileaks pages. If only there were countries who provided a safe haven for information. Would Amazon have done if France asked? Probably - depends on how much of their business the French government can mess with and depends on whether they might be accused of assisting and abetting espionage in French courts. I even bet that if his server was in India, it would have been pulled down if the India government cared about the leaks and said 'boo'. And as long as governments insist on their sovereignty, no global central committee for internet governance policy is going to make any difference in this sort of issue. I wonder does anyone care about the content of the cables and what they have to say about various countries' attitudes and positions? a. Ps. Then again Palin says he should be hunted like the Taliban. So what more is there to say! On 2 Dec 2010, at 11:53, Guru गुरु wrote: > Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking the constant position of govt = evil is able to defend infomation being censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point. > > Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan, let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down? > Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an international structure/process > ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 2 19:02:37 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:02:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] Our representation at the Enhanced Cooperation consultation Message-ID: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org> David Allen has very kindly agreed to attend the Enhanced Cooperation consulation in New York on 14 December to represent the IGC, and hopefully to discuss our submission with the representative of CONGO, Liberato Bautista, who is meant to be summarising the views of civil society. Many thanks also to Milton Mueller who had also offered to attend if necessary, though we now won't need to impose on him for this (it would have been a very early flight). Anyone else who would like to attend is very welcome to do so. It is to be held in Conference Room 2-North Lawn Building, United Nations, (entrance at 46th Street and First Avenue, New York, NY 10017), from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. If you want the (possible) opportunity to speak, you have to register at http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Dec 2 22:19:48 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:19:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Re: >1.What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not >being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? To me the WHOIS System is a mess enough in English, I can't imagine an Internationtionalized WhoIs Postal Addressing system that can be universally recognized, in as far as native-language postal addresses. >2.What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international >cooperation in these areas? An enumeralization system for Whois who, in which real Postal Addresses can be translated into multiple languages. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 2 23:45:52 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:45:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> Message-ID: <665693F4-50D1-499D-A1E1-EEEB817A232C@acm.org> On 2 Dec 2010, at 12:26, Avri Doria wrote: > find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks e.g. that the US is pushing Interpol to use a Red Notice to get Assange yet the US is not assisting Interpol in using a Red Notice to get Cheney for war crimes. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 3 00:12:46 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:42:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> Message-ID: <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net> On Thursday 02 December 2010 10:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks and the upcoming martyrdom of Assange. > > I do not find it particularly ironic that a company is pressured to pull down the website in this extreme environment where most all of the countries of the world are screaming for his head and willing to get it in any way they can. > > I think it is highly ironic that the first time Interpol cares about a rape, I mean the quest to question someone over a possible case of rape and sexual abuse, enough to make someone Most Wanted. If only they cared about all possible rapes and cases of sexual abuse with that degree of urgency. Normally I have a guilty until proven innocent view on accusations of rape (I know, this is a character fault) but in this case the happenstance of the accusations and the wikileaks Iraq papers, and now the ratcheting up when the cables are leaked make me somewhat suspicious. In fact I see this as terrible gender exploitation by the powers that be. Can't wait to see the insanity when they start leaking about the banks, probably accuse him of pedophilia. > > To answer your question, i think almost any server in the world would have been pressured to pull down wikileaks pages. If only there were countries who provided a safe haven for information. Would Amazon have done if France asked? Probably - depends on how much of their business the French government can mess with and depends on whether they might be accused of assisting and abetting espionage in French courts. I even bet that if his server was in India, it would have been pulled down if the India government cared about the leaks and said 'boo'. And as long as governments insist on their sovereignty, no global central committee for internet governance policy is going to make any difference in this sort of issue. > If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need to have alternative globally democratic power (or governance) centres. That is what IT for Change's input for enhanced cooperation seeks. The sovereignty of countries have been successfully diminished by arrangements like WTO and WIPO, though in these cases quite often to the detriment to the less powerful countries. Otherwise things will work through ad hoc use of power, by the law of the jungle, as we see in the present instance. If you have raw power you can get things done, if you havent , dont even bother to complaint, just understand that is how things are and you better get used to it. As you would have noticed, our input seeks not only to establish a globally democratic governance system for these kinds of cases, but also to ensure that it doesnt work arbitrarily, seeking codification of principles by which it would work (our framework convention proposal). If the global community could agree to codify Human Rights in 1947, I trust we can codify good global principles for the Internet in 2010. I dont see any reason why we cannot. Though would be happy to hear other views on how the situation that we are in at present can be effectively addressed. Parminder Parminder > I wonder does anyone care about the content of the cables and what they have to say about various countries' attitudes and positions? > > a. > > Ps. Then again Palin says he should be hunted like the Taliban. So what more is there to say! > > > On 2 Dec 2010, at 11:53, Guru गुरु wrote: > > >> Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking the constant position of govt = evil is able to defend infomation being censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point. >> >> Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan, let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down? >> Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an international structure/process >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 3 00:51:40 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:51:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 02 December 2010 10:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks and the > upcoming martyrdom of Assange. > > I do not find it particularly ironic that a company is pressured to pull > down the website in this extreme environment where most all of the countries > of the world are screaming for his head and willing to get it in any way > they can. > > I think it is highly ironic that the first time Interpol cares about a rape, > I mean the quest to question someone over a possible case of rape and sexual > abuse, enough to make someone Most Wanted. If only they cared about all > possible rapes and cases of sexual abuse with that degree of urgency. > Normally I have a guilty until proven innocent view on accusations of rape > (I know, this is a character fault) but in this case the happenstance of the > accusations and the wikileaks Iraq papers, and now the ratcheting up when > the cables are leaked make me somewhat suspicious. In fact I see this as > terrible gender exploitation by the powers that be. Can't wait to see the > insanity when they start leaking about the banks, probably accuse him of > pedophilia. > > To answer your question, i think almost any server in the world would have > been pressured to pull down wikileaks pages. If only there were countries > who provided a safe haven for information. Would Amazon have done if France > asked? Probably - depends on how much of their business the French > government can mess with and depends on whether they might be accused of > assisting and abetting espionage in French courts. I even bet that if his > server was in India, it would have been pulled down if the India government > cared about the leaks and said 'boo'. And as long as governments insist on > their sovereignty, no global central committee for internet governance > policy is going to make any difference in this sort of issue. > > > If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a > vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need > to have alternative globally democratic power I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act unilaterally is idealistic at best. Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be asserting authority of some kind. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 3 00:36:38 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:36:38 +1100 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction. They are not handled well ­ IGC has run workshops on this at the last few IGFs. Further work needs to be done here. I could list a few of the past anomalies but I think most people here are aware of them. It¹s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of these. The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some universal principles IMHO. From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:58:50 +0800 To: , parminder Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote: > A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus > on the following two questions. > > 1. What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not > being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? > 2. > 3. What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international > cooperation in these areas? Thanks, I missed this. Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions? It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 3 01:04:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder wrote: > >> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a >> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need >> to have alternative globally democratic power >> > I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act > unilaterally is idealistic at best. > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the jungle? BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally. About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most political discussions here. Parminder > Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand > (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be > asserting authority of some kind. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 3 01:09:47 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:09:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net> <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:04 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder wrote: > > > If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a > vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need > to have alternative globally democratic power > > > I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act > unilaterally is idealistic at best. > > > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the > jungle? not my thinking at all. > > BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, > governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally. The key word there being "largely". > > About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to > think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of > all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most > political discussions here. That's the ethos that has made the Internet so successful thus far, I don't think we should move away from it. Perhaps i should have used the word "naive", but I was trying to be gentle. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 3 01:17:26 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 17:17:26 +1100 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I have to pick up on this > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the jungle? Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans ­ well, yes! As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and structured for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are aware of their inter dependencies and act to protect each others existence. A nice balance between different and complementary life forms which enhance each other and could teach us a lot about enhanced co=operation. I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of this if you are looking for an analogy for some worse state of existence than nation states. I am not sure that there is one to be honest, given the history of silly wars , non democratic feudal behaviour, and intolerance, but if there is a worse state it is certainly not the jungle! Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530 To: Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder > wrote: > > >> >> >> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a >> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need >> to have alternative globally democratic power >> >> > > > I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act > unilaterally is idealistic at best. > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the jungle? BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally. About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most political discussions here. Parminder > > > Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand > (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be > asserting authority of some kind. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 3 01:19:51 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:49:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CF88C07.5060700@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 11:06 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary > jurisdiction. They are not handled well -- IGC has run workshops on > this at the last few IGFs. > > Further work needs to be done here. I could list a few of the past > anomalies but I think most people here are aware of them. It's a > mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the > registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation > could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the > nation state of any of these. > > > The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of > some universal principles IMHO. Ian IT for Change's contribution lists this as a key issue that needs to be addressed urgently, as it also speaks of formulating some universal principles around these kinds of issues. Parminder > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *Jeremy Malcolm > *Reply-To: *, Jeremy Malcolm > > *Date: *Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:58:50 +0800 > *To: *, parminder > *Subject: *Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs > > On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote: > > A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also > specifically focus on the following two questions. > > 1. What international public policy issues pertaining to the > Internet are not being adequately addressed by current > mechanisms? > 2. > > 3. What specific processes should be pursued to enhance > international cooperation in these areas? > > > Thanks, I missed this. Are there any views that we as the IGC would > like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions? > It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present > at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm > discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further > contributions on these questions. > -- > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 3 01:32:17 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:02:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CF88EF1.3050606@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 11:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, I have to pick up on this > > > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of > the jungle? > > Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans -- well, yes! > > As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and > structured for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are > aware of their inter dependencies and act to protect each others > existence. A nice balance between different and complementary life > forms which enhance each other and could teach us a lot about enhanced > co=operation. > > I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of > this if you are looking for an analogy for some worse state of > existence than nation states. I am not sure that there is one to be > honest, given the history of silly wars , non democratic feudal > behaviour, and intolerance, but if there is a worse state it is > certainly not the jungle! Ian, Probably I should not say anything in response to your well-intentions ecological musings :), which of course have been said by putting your political hat aside. However i did not invent the phrase 'law of the jungle' nor originally ascribe to it the meaning in which it is used which is things like 'might is right' and 'survival of the fittest'. Darwinism may be a natural fact, but Darwinism applied to society is not the kind of thing we want to live by, right. Parminder > > Ian Peter > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530 > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs > > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > > If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, > especially vis a > vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, > then you need > to have alternative globally democratic power > > > > > I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act > unilaterally is idealistic at best. > > > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of > the jungle? > > BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, > governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally. > > About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic > than to think that everything can self govern itself to the best > satisfaction of all, the kind of thinking that underlies your > contributions to most political discussions here. > > Parminder > > > > Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand > (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be > asserting authority of some kind. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 3 02:10:18 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:10:18 +1100 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF88EF1.3050606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Of course Parminder I realise that you did not invent that phrase! But there is something attached to the continued use of that phrase (the law of the jungle) that is symptomatic of a greater problem ­ the belief that we as humans have evolved beyond nature and to be better than nature. We haven¹t. That belief that we are above and beyond nature is at the centre of many false belief systems and resultant dysfunctional societal structures. But I digress ­ yes I agree with the It4Change raising of transboundary issues as a gap in current internet governance structures and your responses here. I think IGC should adopt something similar. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:02:17 +0530 To: Ian Peter , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs On Friday 03 December 2010 11:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs Hi Parminder, I have > to pick up on this > >> > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the >> jungle? > > Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans ­ well, yes! > > As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and structured > for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are aware of their inter > dependencies and act to protect each others existence. A nice balance between > different and complementary life forms which enhance each other and could > teach us a lot about enhanced co=operation. > > I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of this if you > are looking for an analogy for some worse state of existence than nation > states. I am not sure that there is one to be honest, given the history of > silly wars , non democratic feudal behaviour, and intolerance, but if there is > a worse state it is certainly not the jungle! > Ian, Probably I should not say anything in response to your well-intentions ecological musings :), which of course have been said by putting your political hat aside. However i did not invent the phrase 'law of the jungle' nor originally ascribe to it the meaning in which it is used which is things like 'might is right' and 'survival of the fittest'. Darwinism may be a natural fact, but Darwinism applied to society is not the kind of thing we want to live by, right. Parminder > > Ian Peter > > > > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530 > To: > Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs > > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a >>> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need >>> to have alternative globally democratic power >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act >> unilaterally is idealistic at best. >> >> > > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the > jungle? > > BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, > governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally. > > About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to > think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of all, > the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most political > discussions here. > > Parminder > > >> >> >> Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand >> (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be >> asserting authority of some kind. >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 3 02:58:19 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:58:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] [Gurstein's Community Informatics] A New Blogpost: The IDRC and "Open Development": ICT4D by and for the New Middle Class Message-ID: <87CC14D640EA4F3497A2F3CA6B23B3F3@userPC> This may be of interest... Apologies for duplications. M The IDRC and "Open Development": ICT4D by and for the New Middle Class URL : http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%e2%80%9copen-developm ent%e2%80%9d-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/ "Certainly it is very hard to fault (or even disagree) with any of the above except that this definition and the following paper seem to not understand that lack of access in most developmental contexts isn't simply a failure of reasonable people to understand that they should proceed in an "open" rather than a "closed/restrictive" fashion. The lack of access in many if not most cases serves the interests of some quite well including many who gain considerable advantage from lack of transparency, restrictions on use of government data, the use of security designations in inappropriate contexts. In these instances a lack of access is most frequently a function of a lack of power in a particular social and economic context and that articulating the good feelings attendant on an "openness" strategy are as unlikely to change those restrictions as were the thinking of good thoughts sufficient to stop the flow of oil from the BP Gulf catastrophe. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 3 04:56:28 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:56:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Our representation at the Enhanced Cooperation consultation In-Reply-To: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org> References: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904 at ciroap.org>, at 08:02:37 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes >Anyone else who would like to attend is very welcome to do so.  It is >to be held in Conference Room 2-North Lawn Building, United Nations, >(entrance at 46th Street and First Avenue, New York, NY 10017), from >10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Is there any pre-registration/badging requirement? Anyone heard about a webcast (just to listen, rather than contribute). -- 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 Fri Dec 3 05:00:23 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:00:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 16:36:38 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter writes >Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary >jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this >at the last few IGFs. > >Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past >anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, >and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, >the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get >involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state >of any of these. > >The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of >some universal principles IMHO. Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can see. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 3 05:16:46 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:46:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 16:36:38 on > Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter writes >> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary >> jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on >> this at the last few IGFs. >> >> Further work needs to be done here. I could list a few of the past >> anomalies but I think most people here are aware of them. It?s a >> mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the >> registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation >> could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends >> the nation state of any of these. >> >> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption >> of some universal principles IMHO. > > Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or > several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. > > But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I > can see. Dear Roland, At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global democracy count for anything? On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it. This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for consultations on enhanced cooperation. Thanks Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 3 05:24:43 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:24:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: and we have come full circle. repeat ... a. On 3 Dec 2010, at 05:16, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 16:36:38 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter writes >>> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this at the last few IGFs. >>> >>> Further work needs to be done here. I could list a few of the past anomalies but I think most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of these. >>> >>> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some universal principles IMHO. >> >> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. >> >> But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can see. > > Dear Roland, > > At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global democracy count for anything? > > On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it. > > This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for consultations on enhanced cooperation. > > Thanks > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 Fri Dec 3 06:17:00 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:47:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > and we have come full circle. > > repeat ... > > a. > Avri, can you please allow people to discuss what they want to discuss on this list and keep your supercilious one liners out of it. They are rather irritating, thats all. Thanks. parminder ( Also request the co-coordinators to look into this.... this is like, two people discussing something, and someone comes in with a line ' there you go again....'. Irritating and irrelevant, isnt it.) > On 3 Dec 2010, at 05:16, parminder wrote: > > >> >> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> In message, at 16:36:38 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter writes >>> >>>> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this at the last few IGFs. >>>> >>>> Further work needs to be done here. I could list a few of the past anomalies but I think most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of these. >>>> >>>> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some universal principles IMHO. >>>> >>> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. >>> >>> But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can see. >>> >> Dear Roland, >> >> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global democracy count for anything? >> >> On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it. >> >> This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for consultations on enhanced cooperation. >> >> Thanks >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 3 09:06:06 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:06:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] CoE References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear Parminder you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members. Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet. Thanks 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 3 09:16:58 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:16:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, parminder writes >On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 16:36:38 on > Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter writes > Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary >> jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops >> on this at the last few IGFs. > Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the >> past anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. >> It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country >> of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting >> organisation could all get involved in legal action against a >> site that offends the nation state of any of these. > The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the >> adoption of some universal principles IMHO. >> >> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or > several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. > But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I > can see. >Dear Roland, > >At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my >approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it >again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. >Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and >global democracy count for anything? That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong with the initiatives. That's pragmatism rather than paternalism. We are where we are, and if those initiatives will solve the problem - why is their parentage such an issue? >On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why >should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all >countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' >remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it. I'm "against" needless duplication, but also "for" the greater participation of all, in the development of future initiatives. That's what I do - work hard to bring new people into existing places so they can make their views known. And when there's a genuine vacuum, try to form something new to address that issue. >This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for >consultations on enhanced cooperation. >Thanks >Parminder -- 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 Fri Dec 3 09:29:22 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:29:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <4CF88EF1.3050606@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006ECE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I'll third that thought...re transboundary issues being a still significant gap. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs Of course Parminder I realise that you did not invent that phrase! But there is something attached to the continued use of that phrase (the law of the jungle) that is symptomatic of a greater problem – the belief that we as humans have evolved beyond nature and to be better than nature. We haven’t. That belief that we are above and beyond nature is at the centre of many false belief systems and resultant dysfunctional societal structures. But I digress – yes I agree with the It4Change raising of transboundary issues as a gap in current internet governance structures and your responses here. I think IGC should adopt something similar. Ian Peter ________________________________ From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:02:17 +0530 To: Ian Peter , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs On Friday 03 December 2010 11:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs Hi Parminder, I have to pick up on this > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the jungle? Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans – well, yes! As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and structured for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are aware of their inter dependencies and act to protect each others existence. A nice balance between different and complementary life forms which enhance each other and could teach us a lot about enhanced co=operation. I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of this if you are looking for an analogy for some worse state of existence than nation states. I am not sure that there is one to be honest, given the history of silly wars , non democratic feudal behaviour, and intolerance, but if there is a worse state it is certainly not the jungle! Ian, Probably I should not say anything in response to your well-intentions ecological musings :), which of course have been said by putting your political hat aside. However i did not invent the phrase 'law of the jungle' nor originally ascribe to it the meaning in which it is used which is things like 'might is right' and 'survival of the fittest'. Darwinism may be a natural fact, but Darwinism applied to society is not the kind of thing we want to live by, right. Parminder Ian Peter ________________________________ From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530 To: Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder wrote: If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need to have alternative globally democratic power I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act unilaterally is idealistic at best. So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the jungle? BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally. About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most political discussions here. Parminder Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be asserting authority of some kind. ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org Fri Dec 3 10:09:36 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:09:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] CoE In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, While original OECD member countries are "high developed industrial nations" of the West, it is not entirely true now. They have been expanding its membership and activities. Of course, major works are still sort of "controlled" by rich industrial countries, just pointing that out may not be much productive. I had similar image about OECD as "the Club of rich Western countries", they are trying to shift that. Yes, the procedure to join OECD is not explicitly mentioned, and most meetings are "closed" and working documents are kept only among member, thus it is still rather closed, I agree. From OECD website: The 33 member countries of OECD are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israël, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. Twenty of these countries became members on 14 December 1960, when the Convention establishing the organisation was signed. The others have joined over the years. In a Supplementary Protocol to the OECD Convention, the signatory states decided that the Commission of the European Community “shall participate in the work” of the Organisation. This participation goes well beyond that of a mere observer, and in fact gives the Commission quasi-Member status. In May 2007, OECD countries agreed to invite Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership of the Organisation and offered enhanced engagement to Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. The approval of so-called "road maps" in December 2007 marked the start of accession talks with Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia. http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html Just FYI. izumi 2010/12/3 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Dear Parminder > > you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members. > > Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet. > > Thanks > > 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 From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 3 13:06:05 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:06:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F15E2CD-A856-401C-9ED0-5C0AC8468F2A@acm.org> hi, Nothing supercilious about it. And please do not accuse me of things. I apologize if one liners are a problem but I tend to think in brief sentences. Might be a deficiency of mine. And I see no way my comment, any comments I made, stopping you or anyone else from having a discussion. When I mentioned repeat ..., I meant that I would like to have all of my previous comments on the this topic entered back into the record for this round of the discussion. e.g. especially the ones relating to not only focusing on just some of regional organizations but recommending that people put in the same effort that people put into COE to make if a viable regional organization for representing their regions intersts and for presenting solution paths others could discuss. a. On 3 Dec 2010, at 06:17, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> and we have come full circle. >> >> repeat ... >> >> a. >> >> > > Avri, can you please allow people to discuss what they want to discuss on this list and keep your supercilious one liners out of it. They are rather irritating, thats all. Thanks. parminder > > ( Also request the co-coordinators to look into this.... this is like, two people discussing something, and someone comes in with a line ' there you go again....'. Irritating and irrelevant, isnt it.) > > >> On 3 Dec 2010, at 05:16, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> >>> >>>> In message , at 16:36:38 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter >>>> writes >>>> >>>> >>>>> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this at the last few IGFs. >>>>> >>>>> Further work needs to be done here. I could list a few of the past anomalies but I think most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of these. >>>>> >>>>> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some universal principles IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. >>>> >>>> But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can see. >>>> >>>> >>> Dear Roland, >>> >>> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global democracy count for anything? >>> >>> On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it. >>> >>> This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for consultations on enhanced cooperation. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> 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 From tina.dam at icann.org Fri Dec 3 20:42:34 2010 From: tina.dam at icann.org (Tina Dam) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:42:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days. In any event, I hope some general information will help the discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community development of the process that there should be no reconsideration process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or otherwise concerns existed. Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will discuss all aspects of the process there - see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails, part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly. I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact. Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the ccNSO. Tina Tina Dam Senior Director IDNs Mobile: +1-310-862-2026 Voice: +1-310-301-5838 ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson > Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) > similar to other Latin ccTLDs? > > Dear All, > > I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important: > > http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from today) > > Yours, > Petko > > Bulgarian IT Users Group > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of > domain > > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and > other > > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well > before > > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda. > > > > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a > domain > > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right > people. > >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser > enhancements > > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of ensuring > that > > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name > confusion. > > > > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more > > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view > [sic] that > > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right... > > > > Speaking for myself only. > > > > Paul. > > > > > > > > > > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" > > > wrote: > > > >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly > >> legitimate cyrillic cctld. > >> > >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their > >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already > >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, > or 3 > >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > _ > > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >   > > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 > 3100 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Dec 3 21:42:43 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:42:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] Our representation at the Enhanced Cooperation consultation In-Reply-To: References: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <641B77C5-73FD-4A1F-89E1-27CCE93C1855@ciroap.org> On 03/12/2010, at 5:56 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904 at ciroap.org>, at 08:02:37 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes > >> Anyone else who would like to attend is very welcome to do so. It is to be held in Conference Room 2-North Lawn Building, United Nations, (entrance at 46th Street and First Avenue, New York, NY 10017), from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. > > Is there any pre-registration/badging requirement? Yes a day pass can be obtained at the desk that will be set up from 9:00 a.m. at the lobby of the General Assembly (visitors' area). You should notify your intention to attend to doylee at un.org. You should not encounter any resistance because of not being a WSIS-accredited entity, but you do, let us know and we will have words. -- 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 Fri Dec 3 23:45:26 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:15:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: CoE In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CF9C766.3020409@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 07:36 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Dear Parminder > > you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members. > Dear Wolfgang I agree that in a way this is not correct. OECD membership is based on economic strength creteria, while CoE's is on a geo-political logic. CoE certainly has a right to work as a political unit, to the extent it can, and make policies for its members. I do have a lot of respect for all the great work CoE has done, and hope one day our region will have the benefit of such an organisation. Also agreed that CoE does have a very few members that can be called developing countries. However, I put OECD and CoE in the same basket only when, and to the extent that, these groups seek to work (exclusively, as I will argue later) on policy issues that can seen as essentially global in their implication, develop policies in these areas and then expect other countries to then cede to these policies. This is especially indefensible when these groups - or their member countries - seem less than enthusiastic about any truely global initiative to address the same policy issues. In fact, the members of these groups are often seen as actively blocking institutional development at the global level that could possibly, in the future, address these policy issues ('enhanced cooperation' process being a case in point). (They opposed setting up an separate 'commission on information society' as a new WSIS follow up body during WSIS, and, at that time, even did not want IGF as a policy related body and tried quite a lot to keep it only as a capacity building body.) BTW I must say that I am always impressed with your willingness for keeping a dialogue going on all issues, controversial or not. In fact, I remember you sought a discussion with me on the CoE issue on the 25th when we met in Geneva which unfortunately we could not do at that time. > Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet. > > Thank you very much for this kind offer, which, since I know you, I know is genuine. However, I of course cannot accept it given my above views. Though getting someone who could contribute about Internet governance from a global democracy and interests of marginalised people/ groups/ countries point of view is not a bad idea at all. There are many who can fit the bill. Meanwhile, we have seeking some such global declaration of principles since the WSIS days and have made many contributions, which I will be happy to re-refer to you. Maybe if I know you are keeping an eye out, we can increase the number of contributions we make, and their specificity, towards what we think should constitute a global declaration of principles :), with, to use your words, recommendations on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet. BTW, IGC may want to take up your challenge. Come up with what IGC thinks shd be a global declaration of principles, and CoE is welcome to look at it and take liberally from it. Thanks again, parminder > > Thanks > > Wolfgang > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 4 00:21:10 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:51:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 > Dec 2010, parminder writes >> Dear Roland, >> >> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my >> approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it >> again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. >> Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and >> global democracy count for anything? > > That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong with > the initiatives. Who decides what is wrong or not? The corresponding question - since I asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means. > That's pragmatism rather than paternalism. like colonialism (or the white man's burden ) was pragmatism, as apartheid was pragmatism, as China's throttling of dissent is pragmatism........ > We are where we are, Yes, sure. If one is structurally well locating, it comes easy to saying 'we are where we are'..... not to those who are marginalized. I do wonder what are the limits of political correctness on this list. For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global democracy here worries me a lot. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 4 00:59:56 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:29:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] CoE In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CF9D8DC.3030902@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 December 2010 08:39 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > > While original OECD member countries are "high developed industrial > nations" of the > West, it is not entirely true now. They have been expanding its > membership and activities. > > Of course, major works are still sort of "controlled" by rich > industrial countries, just > pointing that out may not be much productive. > And why is it, Izumi, any more productive to keep pointing out that UN is the worst possible thing to figure in any global governance configuration, a task that we here seem to be singularly devoted to. And pointing to how it is 'controlled' by developing country govs which have about everything wrong about them. Especially when, unlike in case of OECD's control by rich countries, this is even not true. Developed countries still wield by far more power at the UN than developing countries. It is a testimony to the ease with which civil society in IG arena has mostly allowed itself to be manipulated by powerful interests that we keep contributing to the impression that the opposite is true. > I had similar image about OECD as "the Club of rich Western countries", they > are trying to shift that. That is what it is, and everyone knows that. You are just being too kind to the powerful group. I have not seen anyone seriously think any other way than that it is the 'club of rich countries' (doesnt matter western of not, that is not the point) Window dressings do not count. We need to be kinder to weaker groups not the most powerful ones. That is what civil society is supposed to do. parminder > Yes, the procedure to join OECD is not explicitly > mentioned, and most meetings are "closed" and working documents are > kept only among member, thus it is still rather closed, I agree. > > From OECD website: > > The 33 member countries of OECD are: > Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, > Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israël, > Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New > Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, > Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. > > Twenty of these countries became members on 14 December 1960, when the > Convention establishing the organisation was signed. The others have > joined over the years. > > In a Supplementary Protocol to the OECD Convention, the signatory > states decided that the Commission of the European Community “shall > participate in the work” of the Organisation. This participation goes > well beyond that of a mere observer, and in fact gives the Commission > quasi-Member status. > > In May 2007, OECD countries agreed to invite Chile, Estonia, Israel, > Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership of the > Organisation and offered enhanced engagement to Brazil, China, India, > Indonesia and South Africa. The approval of so-called "road maps" in > December 2007 marked the start of accession talks with Chile, Estonia, > Israel, Russia and Slovenia. > > http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html > > Just FYI. > > izumi > > > 2010/12/3 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > : > >> Dear Parminder >> >> you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members. >> >> Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet. >> >> Thanks >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From petko.kolev49 at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 03:34:09 2010 From: petko.kolev49 at gmail.com (Petko Kolev) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:34:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Hi Tina, You didn`t respond to my email, so I`m asking you publicly - could you give me a permission to make public the DNS Stability report of the rejection of the Bulgarian application? As I told you, by Bulgarian law its public. Yours, Petko Bulgarian IT Users Group On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Tina Dam wrote: > Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days. > > In any event, I hope some general information will help the discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community development of the process that there should be no reconsideration process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or otherwise concerns existed. > > Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will discuss all aspects of the process there - see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm > > On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails, part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly. I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact. > > Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the ccNSO. > > Tina > > > Tina Dam > Senior Director IDNs > > Mobile: +1-310-862-2026 > Voice: +1-310-301-5838 > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) >> similar to other Latin ccTLDs? >> >> Dear All, >> >> I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important: >> >> http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from today) >> >> Yours, >> Petko >> >> Bulgarian IT Users Group >> >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of >> domain >> > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and >> other >> > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well >> before >> > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda. >> > >> > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a >> domain >> > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right >> people. >> >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser >> enhancements >> > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of ensuring >> that >> > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name >> confusion. >> > >> > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more >> > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view >> [sic] that >> > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right... >> > >> > Speaking for myself only. >> > >> > Paul. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" >> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly >> >> legitimate cyrillic cctld. >> >> >> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their >> >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already >> >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, >> or 3 >> >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >>   >> > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 >> 3100 >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 tina.dam at icann.org Sat Dec 4 05:00:55 2010 From: tina.dam at icann.org (Tina Dam) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 02:00:55 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Petko, I am sorry if I have missed an email from you - it may have been due to my vacation the last couple of days (am still catching up). It is not an ICANN decision to make anything about an IDN ccTLD application public. Contrary, according to the process, we need to keep it confidential. So this will be a decision by the applicant. Tina > -----Original Message----- > From: Petko Kolev [mailto:petko.kolev49 at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:34 AM > To: Tina Dam > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) > similar to other Latin ccTLDs? > > Hi Tina, > > You didn`t respond to my email, so I`m asking you publicly - could you > give me a permission to make public the DNS Stability report of the > rejection of the Bulgarian application? As I told you, by Bulgarian > law its public. > > Yours, > Petko > > Bulgarian IT Users Group > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Tina Dam wrote: > > Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but > have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days. > > > > In any event, I hope some general information will help the > discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the > initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community > development of the process that there should be no reconsideration > process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a > limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or > otherwise concerns existed. > > > > Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review > of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a > public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will > discuss all aspects of the process there - see: > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm > > > > On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails, > part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that > specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly. > I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact. > > > > Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the > limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the > ccNSO. > > > > Tina > > > > > > Tina Dam > > Senior Director IDNs > > > > Mobile: +1-310-862-2026 > > Voice: +1-310-301-5838 > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > >> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev > >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) > >> similar to other Latin ccTLDs? > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important: > >> > >> http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from > today) > >> > >> Yours, > >> Petko > >> > >> Bulgarian IT Users Group > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson > wrote: > >> > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of > >> domain > >> > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting > and > >> other > >> > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well > >> before > >> > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda. > >> > > >> > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which > helps a > >> domain > >> > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the > right > >> people. > >> >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser > >> enhancements > >> > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of > ensuring > >> that > >> > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name > >> confusion. > >> > > >> > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be > more > >> > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view > >> [sic] that > >> > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right... > >> > > >> > Speaking for myself only. > >> > > >> > Paul. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly > >> >> legitimate cyrillic cctld. > >> >> > >> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their > >> >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are > already > >> >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from > б, > >> or 3 > >> >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________________________________ > >> _ > >> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > >>   > >> > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 > 3858 > >> 3100 > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mail at edmon.asia Sat Dec 4 07:45:18 2010 From: mail at edmon.asia (Edmon) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:45:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> Hi Tina, You mean this is not ICANN staff decision?... the requirement for confidentiality that you mentioned was a process based on the IDNC report developed by the ICANN community and the implementation plan thereupon developed by ICANN staff... I do remember discussing precisely this issue at the IDNC (Fast Track) WG and the policy (for confidentiality) eventually set was influenced strongly by participants from the ccNSO and GAC communities. It was an ICANN decision in some way to not have the information public... Not meaning to nit-pick on Tina's words (ICANN staff/community), but trying to illustrate a point for why we want more participation earlier on in ICANN policy development/decision processes :-) Very much agree with Paul's earlier point about it being more widespread for and having implications on new gTLDs (including IDN gTLDs)... so this is definitely an issue worth following through... now. Also, since the Fast Track is an ongoing process and is under review, it is not untimely to bring it up I think... Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Tina Dam > Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2010 6:01 PM > To: Petko Kolev > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin > ccTLDs? > > Hi Petko, I am sorry if I have missed an email from you - it may have been due to my > vacation the last couple of days (am still catching up). > > It is not an ICANN decision to make anything about an IDN ccTLD application > public. Contrary, according to the process, we need to keep it confidential. So this > will be a decision by the applicant. > > Tina > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Petko Kolev [mailto:petko.kolev49 at gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:34 AM > > To: Tina Dam > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) > > similar to other Latin ccTLDs? > > > > Hi Tina, > > > > You didn`t respond to my email, so I`m asking you publicly - could you > > give me a permission to make public the DNS Stability report of the > > rejection of the Bulgarian application? As I told you, by Bulgarian > > law its public. > > > > Yours, > > Petko > > > > Bulgarian IT Users Group > > > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Tina Dam wrote: > > > Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but > > have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days. > > > > > > In any event, I hope some general information will help the > > discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the > > initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community > > development of the process that there should be no reconsideration > > process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a > > limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or > > otherwise concerns existed. > > > > > > Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review > > of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a > > public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will > > discuss all aspects of the process there - see: > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm > > > > > > On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails, > > part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that > > specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly. > > I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact. > > > > > > Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the > > limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the > > ccNSO. > > > > > > Tina > > > > > > > > > Tina Dam > > > Senior Director IDNs > > > > > > Mobile: +1-310-862-2026 > > > Voice: +1-310-301-5838 > > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > > >> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) > > >> similar to other Latin ccTLDs? > > >> > > >> Dear All, > > >> > > >> I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important: > > >> > > >> http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from > > today) > > >> > > >> Yours, > > >> Petko > > >> > > >> Bulgarian IT Users Group > > >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson > > wrote: > > >> > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of > > >> domain > > >> > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting > > and > > >> other > > >> > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well > > >> before > > >> > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda. > > >> > > > >> > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which > > helps a > > >> domain > > >> > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the > > right > > >> people. > > >> > The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser > > >> enhancements > > >> > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of > > ensuring > > >> that > > >> > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name > > >> confusion. > > >> > > > >> > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be > > more > > >> > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view > > >> [sic] that > > >> > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right... > > >> > > > >> > Speaking for myself only. > > >> > > > >> > Paul. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly > > >> >> legitimate cyrillic cctld. > > >> >> > > >> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their > > >> >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are > > already > > >> >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from > > б, > > >> or 3 > > >> >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > __________________________________________________________________ > _____ > > >> _ > > >> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > > >> > > >> > http://www.apnic.net +61 7 > > 3858 > > >> 3100 > > >> > > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 From ceo at bnnrc.net Sat Dec 4 07:58:05 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 18:58:05 +0600 Subject: [governance] Focus. Info: Bangladesh Conference: February 24-25, 2010, Dhaka Bangladesh - Deadline to apply: 6 December 2010 at 12 GMT (+1:00) Message-ID: Focus. Info: Bangladesh Conference February 24-25, 2010, Dhaka Bangladesh Deadline to apply: 6 December 2010 at 12 GMT (+1:00) Networks are a very effective way to access research information and knowledge, a fundamental human right that strengthens democracy. Getting access to information also requires technical skills and abilities to use the latest information sharing and collaboration tools. Only then we can create cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural and cross-border networks in which the exchange of research information and knowledge improves. The Bangladesh Conference aims at helping institutes in Bangladesh and surrounding countries to develop effective research infrastructures by strengthening information skills of a target group of 60 students, researchers, policy-makers and individual practitioners in the field of global development studies and research. Through hands-on exercises the participants will be introduced to tools to present themselves, to find experts, to share knowledge and to work together. To promote sustainability of the event, participants will have time to plan how they will take forward the new lessons learnt. The Bangladesh Conference also aims at establishing a group of local experts who will continue the work of the conference: promoting the latest information sharing and collaboration tools among students, researchers, policy-makers and individual practitioners in global development research and studies. This continuation is made possible, because the Focuss.Info Initiative (www.focuss.info) is sponsoring peers in the Africa, Asia and South America by awarding grants. With these grants, local experts get the possibility to organise their own workshops on the new information sharing and collaboration tools, technologies and concepts. Program You can download the complete programme here: Programme Bangladesh Conference Tickets It is very simple to apply to the Bangladesh Conference. Get your free ticket by carefully filling out the application form in the left-hand column. The coordinators of this Conference from Bangladesh, Denmark and the Netherlands will then select 60 people who will be a part of this conference. Deadline to apply: 6 December 2010 at 12 GMT (+1:00) http://www.focuss.info/bangladesh/ Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Focus Info Schudule.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 228296 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Dec 4 12:51:34 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:51:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7365152.32374.1291485065254.JavaMail.www@wwinf2205> Parminder wrote : Message du 04/12/10 06:21 > De : "parminder" > A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Roland Perry" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, parminder writes > Dear Roland, > > At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my > approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it > again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. > Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and > global democracy count for anything? > > That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong with the initiatives. > Who decides what is wrong or not? The corresponding question - since I asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means. > > > That's pragmatism rather than paternalism. like colonialism (or the white man's burden ) was pragmatism, as apartheid was pragmatism, as China's throttling of dissent is pragmatism........ > > We are where we are, > Yes, sure. If one is structurally well locating, it comes easy to saying 'we are where we are'..... not to those who are marginalized. > > I do wonder what are the limits of political correctness on this list. > > For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global democracy here worries me a lot. > > parminder > > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vb at bertola.eu Sat Dec 4 14:50:00 2010 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:50:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland In-Reply-To: References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4CFA9B68.50303@bertola.eu> Il 02/12/10 09:37, McTim ha scritto: > My point is that if your org has sensitive (or not) information, do > you not have an interest in having it not released to the public? > Would you not be a tad upset if all of your emails for example were > put online by a hacker? I think you might. You're free to see it as you like - in the meantime, I have changed my mind about making orders on Amazon, even if it provides the best price and service, and placed my Christmas order with another vendor. Judging from what I see on social networks and blogs, I'm definitely not the only one. I don't want to give my money to a service provider which happily bows to governmental pressure and censors websites for political reasons. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Dec 4 14:54:57 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of service, below. Lee ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? Begin forwarded message: From: Sam™ > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST To: Dave Farber IP > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? This may be of interest to the list. Sam™ https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered other customers' service – effectively pushing site off the web Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with them. On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, WikiLeaks.ch. Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious problem." "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing a new domain name – wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss suffix. However, the new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on Friday morning, is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is still being done by everydns. Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their relationship with the website." Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain – wikileaks.dd19.de – also appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based web services director, this morning launched Wikileeks.org.uk – a "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net service said that the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers – who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net – meant that the leaks site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken everydns.net's terms of service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday). DNS services translate a website name, such as guardian.co.uk, into machine-readable "IP quads" – in that case 77.91.249.30, so that http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the site is only reachable via IP address – but WikiLeaks has not yet provided one via Twitter or other means. Everydns.net said that the attacks – which have been going on all week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service – "threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites". WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has resulted from its failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking of thousands of US diplomatic cables. US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of the data – and who has influenced at least one other US company to withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". Amazon said: "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them. There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." It noted that: "When companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for further donations to "keep us strong". Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 4 15:24:18 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 07:24:18 +1100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe Liebermann.... > From: Lee W McKnight > Reply-To: , Lee W McKnight > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their > cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of > service, below. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Sam > > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST > To: Dave Farber IP > > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > This may be of interest to the list. > > Sam > https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns > -everydns > > WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name > Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered > other > customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web > Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday > guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT > > WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. > Photograph: Joe > Raedle/Getty Images > The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against > WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after > Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. > > The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week > this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. > > Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland > security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping > sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with > them. > > On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic > documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the > world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS > address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, > WikiLeaks.ch. > > Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the > "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious > problem." > > "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off > alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. > > The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks > at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to > prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense > cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. > > The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing > a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss suffix. > However, the > new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks > has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. > > The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on > Friday morning, > is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is > still being done by everydns. > > Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published > data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks > diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the > company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data > from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe > Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he > called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their > relationship with the website." > > Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, > wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been > applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." > > Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec > Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has > been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under > pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. > > A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ > wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also > appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in > California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain > names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based > web services director, this morning launched > Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a > "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. > > In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net > service said that > the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers > ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks > site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. > That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken > everydns.net's terms of > service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST > Thursday). > > DNS services translate a website name, such as > guardian.co.uk, into > machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that > http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the > site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet > provided one via Twitter or other means. > > Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been > going on all > week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's > more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability > of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access > to almost > 500,000 other websites". > > WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns > said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has > resulted from its > failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." > > The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a > determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point > of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking > of thousands of US diplomatic cables. > > US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove > any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting > of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but > last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to > pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of > the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to > withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. > > In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government > inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". > > Amazon said: > > "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does > have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not > following them. There were several parts they were violating. For > example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary > volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing > could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that > they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." > > It noted that: > > "When companies or people go about securing and storing large > quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this > data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our > terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." > > But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by > the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from > WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and > Iraq. > > Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new > DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS > services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for > further donations to "keep us strong". > > Archives > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] > | > Modify d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sat Dec 4 15:35:35 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between Lieberman and Bezos :) --c.a. On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe > Liebermann.... > > > > >> From: Lee W McKnight >> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of >> service, below. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Sam�> >> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >> To: Dave Farber IP> >> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> This may be of interest to the list. >> >> Sam� >> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns >> -everydns >> >> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered >> other >> customers' service � effectively pushing site off the web >> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >> >> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. >> Photograph: Joe >> Raedle/Getty Images >> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >> >> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >> >> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >> them. >> >> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >> WikiLeaks.ch. >> >> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >> problem." >> >> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >> >> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >> >> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >> a new domain name � wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss suffix. >> However, the >> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >> >> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >> Friday morning, >> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >> still being done by everydns. >> >> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >> relationship with the website." >> >> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >> >> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >> >> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain � >> wikileaks.dd19.de � also >> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >> web services director, this morning launched >> Wikileeks.org.uk � a >> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >> >> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >> service said that >> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >> � who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net � meant that the leaks >> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >> everydns.net's terms of >> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >> Thursday). >> >> DNS services translate a website name, such as >> guardian.co.uk, into >> machine-readable "IP quads" � in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >> site is only reachable via IP address � but WikiLeaks has not yet >> provided one via Twitter or other means. >> >> Everydns.net said that the attacks � which have been >> going on all >> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service � "threaten the stability >> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access >> to almost >> 500,000 other websites". >> >> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >> resulted from its >> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >> >> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >> >> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >> the data � and who has influenced at least one other US company to >> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >> >> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >> >> Amazon said: >> >> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content� >> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >> >> It noted that: >> >> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >> >> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >> Iraq. >> >> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >> further donations to "keep us strong". >> >> Archives >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >> | >> Modify> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >> Now> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 4 15:50:15 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 07:50:15 +1100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: <4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital age. This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current enquiries. . Ian Peter > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: Lee W McKnight > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like > to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between > Lieberman and Bezos :) > > --c.a. > > On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, >> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe >> Liebermann.... >> >> >> >> >>> From: Lee W McKnight >>> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>> >>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of >>> service, below. >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >>> To: ip >>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Sam> >>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >>> To: Dave Farber IP> >>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>> >>> This may be of interest to the list. >>> >>> Sam >>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d >>> ns >>> -everydns >>> >>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >>> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered >>> other >>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >>> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >>> >>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. >>> Photograph: Joe >>> Raedle/Getty Images >>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >>> >>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >>> >>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >>> them. >>> >>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >>> WikiLeaks.ch. >>> >>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >>> problem." >>> >>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >>> >>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >>> >>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >>> suffix. >>> However, the >>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >>> >>> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >>> Friday morning, >>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >>> still being done by everydns. >>> >>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >>> relationship with the website." >>> >>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >>> >>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >>> >>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >>> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >>> web services director, this morning launched >>> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >>> >>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >>> service said that >>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >>> everydns.net's terms of >>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >>> Thursday). >>> >>> DNS services translate a website name, such as >>> guardian.co.uk, into >>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >>> provided one via Twitter or other means. >>> >>> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been >>> going on all >>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >>> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables >>> access >>> to almost >>> 500,000 other websites". >>> >>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >>> resulted from its >>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >>> >>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >>> >>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >>> >>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >>> >>> Amazon said: >>> >>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >>> >>> It noted that: >>> >>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >>> >>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >>> Iraq. >>> >>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >>> further donations to "keep us strong". >>> >>> Archives >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >>> | >>> Modify>> 6e >>> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >>> Now>> -e >>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Dec 4 16:08:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 16:08:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: <4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca> References: ,<4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> While I don't doubt many governments are....upset...a little bit : ) with Wikileaks, don;t make the opposite mistake and believe Joe Lieberman's fairy tale/press releases that this is all about him. Bezos has been playing chicken with US Treasury over paying taxes since he founded the company, I personally don;t doubt Amazon is a bit harder to intimiidate than some of you all...believe. Lee ________________________________________ From: Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:35 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between Lieberman and Bezos :) --c.a. On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe > Liebermann.... > > > > >> From: Lee W McKnight >> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of >> service, below. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Sam�> >> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >> To: Dave Farber IP> >> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> This may be of interest to the list. >> >> Sam� >> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns >> -everydns >> >> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered >> other >> customers' service � effectively pushing site off the web >> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >> >> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. >> Photograph: Joe >> Raedle/Getty Images >> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >> >> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >> >> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >> them. >> >> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >> WikiLeaks.ch. >> >> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >> problem." >> >> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >> >> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >> >> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >> a new domain name � wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss suffix. >> However, the >> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >> >> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >> Friday morning, >> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >> still being done by everydns. >> >> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >> relationship with the website." >> >> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >> >> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >> >> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain � >> wikileaks.dd19.de � also >> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >> web services director, this morning launched >> Wikileeks.org.uk � a >> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >> >> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >> service said that >> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >> � who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net � meant that the leaks >> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >> everydns.net's terms of >> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >> Thursday). >> >> DNS services translate a website name, such as >> guardian.co.uk, into >> machine-readable "IP quads" � in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >> site is only reachable via IP address � but WikiLeaks has not yet >> provided one via Twitter or other means. >> >> Everydns.net said that the attacks � which have been >> going on all >> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service � "threaten the stability >> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access >> to almost >> 500,000 other websites". >> >> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >> resulted from its >> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >> >> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >> >> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >> the data � and who has influenced at least one other US company to >> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >> >> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >> >> Amazon said: >> >> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content� >> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >> >> It noted that: >> >> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >> >> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >> Iraq. >> >> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >> further donations to "keep us strong". >> >> Archives >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >> | >> Modify> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >> Now> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 17:32:17 2010 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:32:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com> Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US? On 2010/12/04 10:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 >> To:, Ian Peter >> Cc: Lee W McKnight >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like >> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between >> Lieberman and Bezos :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, >>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe >>> Liebermann.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Lee W McKnight >>>> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of >>>> service, below. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >>>> To: ip >>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: Sam> >>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >>>> To: Dave Farber IP> >>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> This may be of interest to the list. >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d >>>> ns >>>> -everydns >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >>>> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered >>>> other >>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >>>> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. >>>> Photograph: Joe >>>> Raedle/Getty Images >>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >>>> >>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >>>> >>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >>>> them. >>>> >>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >>>> WikiLeaks.ch. >>>> >>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >>>> problem." >>>> >>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >>>> >>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >>>> >>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >>>> suffix. >>>> However, the >>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >>>> >>>> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >>>> Friday morning, >>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >>>> still being done by everydns. >>>> >>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >>>> relationship with the website." >>>> >>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >>>> >>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >>>> >>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >>>> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >>>> web services director, this morning launched >>>> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >>>> >>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >>>> service said that >>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >>>> everydns.net's terms of >>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >>>> Thursday). >>>> >>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as >>>> guardian.co.uk, into >>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >>>> provided one via Twitter or other means. >>>> >>>> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been >>>> going on all >>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >>>> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables >>>> access >>>> to almost >>>> 500,000 other websites". >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >>>> resulted from its >>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >>>> >>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >>>> >>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >>>> >>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >>>> >>>> Amazon said: >>>> >>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >>>> >>>> It noted that: >>>> >>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >>>> >>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >>>> Iraq. >>>> >>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >>>> further donations to "keep us strong". >>>> >>>> Archives >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >>>> | >>>> Modify>>> 6e >>>> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >>>> Now>>> -e >>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 From karl at cavebear.com Sat Dec 4 17:43:58 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:43:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: , <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CFAC42E.8000506@cavebear.com> On 12/04/2010 11:54 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re > their cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for > violating terms of service, below. > Amazon said: > "[Amazon Web Services] ...terms of service state that "you represent and warrant > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the > extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks > is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to > ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." Two points, particularly since I use Amazon's S3 service to store materials: 1. What evidence does Amazon have that "WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content."? If I understand it, the US Gov't is not able to create materials that are subject to copyright. (Is that correct?) 2. If the material is classified under US law then a better reason would be that Amazon being a US company has obligations in that regard. (I don't know what obligations are, if any, in light of the NY Times case and the Pentagon Papers.) 3. I don't understand what part of Amazon's Terms of Service require that users, such as myself, or Wikileaks, redact documents to minimize possible jeopardy to others. And given that Amazon prices its S3 storage service in units of Terrabytes, one has to wonder whether Amazon is requiring redaction by clients that have orders upon orders more data on Amazon machines than had Wikileaks. By-the-way, I have always wondered whether when one leaves Amazon's storage cloud whether all copies of the data stored are removed or whether it lingers in backups and elsewhere? (That's one reason why all my data on Amazon S3 is pre-encrypted before it is sent there.) 4. I'm with Vittorio in my desire to reduce my Amazon use. But I'm here with my Kindle, storing my data on S3, and ... well let's just say that Amazon is hard to shake off. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Dec 4 17:47:17 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:47:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: <4CFAC42E.8000506@cavebear.com> References: , <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CFAC42E.8000506@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4CFAC4F5.2010302@cavebear.com> By-the-way, has anyone scanned the available part of the wikileaks documents for references to the IGF, ICANN, and other internet matters discussed here? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Dec 4 19:21:30 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:21:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Unofficial P2P TLD standard? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Maybe of interest. Lee ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 5:59 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Fwd: Unofficial P2P TLD standard? Begin forwarded message: From: Sam™ > Date: December 4, 2010 4:31:14 PM EST To: Dave Farber IP > Subject: Unofficial P2P TLD standard? Hi Dave, This hasn't been covered by any reputable media yet, however with support from the pro-Wikileaks community and the anti-censorship community get behind the pro-P2P community, it seems much more likely. It sounds like system administration will be quite time-consuming, though, as they will require people to verify new sites. Sam Waltz http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-based-dns-to-counter-us-domain-seizures-101130/ BitTorrent Based DNS To Counter US Domain Seizures Written by Ernesto on November 30, 2010 The domain seizures by the United States authorities in recent days and upcoming legislation that could make similar takeovers even easier in the future, have inspired a group of enthusiasts to come up with a new, decentralized and BitTorrent-powered DNS system. This system will exchange DNS information through peer-to-peer transfers and will work with a new .p2p domain extension. In a direct response to the domain seizures by US authorities during the last few days, a group of established enthusiasts have started working on a DNS system that can’t be touched by any governmental institution. Ironically, considering the seizure of the Torrent-Finder meta-search engine domain, the new DNS system will be partly powered by BitTorrent. In recent months, global anti-piracy efforts have increasingly focused on seizing domains of allegedly infringing sites. In the United States the proposed COICA bill is explicitly aimed at increasing the government’s censorship powers, but seizing a domain name is already quite easy, as illustrated by ICE and Department of Justice actions last weekend and earlier this year. For governments it is apparently quite easy to take over the DNS entries of domains, not least because several top level domains are managed by US-based corporations such as VeriSign, who work closely together with the US Department of Commerce. According to some, this setup is a threat to the open internet. To limit the power governments have over domain names, a group of enthusiasts has started working on a revolutionary system that can not be influenced by a government institution, or taken down by pulling the plug on a central server. Instead, it is distributed by the people, with help from a BitTorrent-based application that people install on their computer. According to the project’s website, the goal is to “create an application that runs as a service and hooks into the hosts DNS system to catch all requests to the .p2p TLD while passing all other request cleanly through. Requests for the .p2p TLD will be redirected to a locally hosted DNS database.” “By creating a .p2p TLD that is totally decentralized and that does not rely on ICANN or any ISP’s DNS service, and by having this application mimic force-encrypted BitTorrent traffic, there will be a way to start combating DNS level based censoring like the new US proposals as well as those systems in use in countries around the world including China and Iran amongst others.” The Dot-P2P project was literally started a few days ago, but already the developers are making great progress. It is expected that a beta version of the client can be released relatively shortly, a team member assured TorrentFreak. The project has been embraced by many familiar names in the P2P-community. Former Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde is among them, and the people from EZTV have been promoting it as well. “For me it’s mostly to scare back. To show that if they try anything, we have weapons of making it harder for them to abuse it. If they then back down, we win,” Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak in a comment. Although the initiators of the project are still debating on various technical issues on how the system should function, it seems that the administrative part has been thought out. The .p2p domain registration will be handled by OpenNIC, an alternative community based DNS network. OpenNIC also maintains the .geek, .free, .null and several other top level domains. On the other hand, there are also voices that are for distributed domain registration, which would keep the system entirely decentralized. The domain registrations will be totally free, but registrants will have to show that they own a similar domain with a different extension first, to prevent scammers from taking over a brand. The new P2P-based DNS system will require users to run an application on their own computer before they can access the domains, but there are also plans to create a separate root-server (like OpenNIC) as a complimentary service. It’s worth noting that the DNS changes will only affect the new .p2p domains, it will not interfere with access to any other domains. It will be interesting to see in what direction this project goes and how widely it will be adopted. There are already talks of getting Internet Service Providers to accept the .p2p extension as well, but even if this doesn’t happen the system can always be accessed through the BitTorrent-powered application and supporting DNS servers. If anything, this shows that no matter what legislation or legal actions are taken, technology stays always one step ahead. The more aggressive law enforcement gets, the more creative and motivated adopters of the Open Internet will respond. Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 4 22:01:35 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> Hi All A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." Parminder On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 >> To:, Ian Peter >> Cc: Lee W McKnight >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like >> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between >> Lieberman and Bezos :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, >>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe >>> Liebermann.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Lee W McKnight >>>> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >>>> To:"governance at lists.cpsr.org" >>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of >>>> service, below. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >>>> To: ip >>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: Sam> >>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >>>> To: Dave Farber IP> >>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> This may be of interest to the list. >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d >>>> ns >>>> -everydns >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >>>> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered >>>> other >>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >>>> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. >>>> Photograph: Joe >>>> Raedle/Getty Images >>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >>>> >>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >>>> >>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >>>> them. >>>> >>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >>>> WikiLeaks.ch. >>>> >>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >>>> problem." >>>> >>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >>>> >>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >>>> >>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >>>> suffix. >>>> However, the >>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >>>> >>>> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >>>> Friday morning, >>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >>>> still being done by everydns. >>>> >>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >>>> relationship with the website." >>>> >>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >>>> >>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >>>> >>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >>>> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >>>> web services director, this morning launched >>>> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >>>> >>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >>>> service said that >>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >>>> everydns.net's terms of >>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >>>> Thursday). >>>> >>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as >>>> guardian.co.uk, into >>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >>>> provided one via Twitter or other means. >>>> >>>> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been >>>> going on all >>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >>>> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables >>>> access >>>> to almost >>>> 500,000 other websites". >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >>>> resulted from its >>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >>>> >>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >>>> >>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >>>> >>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >>>> >>>> Amazon said: >>>> >>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >>>> >>>> It noted that: >>>> >>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >>>> >>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >>>> Iraq. >>>> >>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >>>> further donations to "keep us strong". >>>> >>>> Archives >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >>>> | >>>> Modify>>> 6e >>>> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >>>> Now>>> -e >>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 4 22:54:04 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:54:04 +1100 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yep, what Parminder said. I believe we should make a generic statement along these lines From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530 To: Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations Hi All A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." Parminder On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 >> To: , Ian >> Peter >> Cc: Lee W McKnight >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like >> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between >> Lieberman and Bezos :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, >>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe >>> Liebermann.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> From: Lee W McKnight >>>> Reply-To: , >>>> Lee W McKnight >>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >>>> >>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms >>>> of >>>> service, below. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >>>> To: ip >>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: Sam> >>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >>>> To: Dave Farber IP> >>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> This may be of interest to the list. >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net->>>> d >>>> ns >>>> -everydns >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >>>> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site >>>> endangered >>>> other >>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >>>> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org >>>> address. >>>> Photograph: Joe >>>> Raedle/Getty Images >>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >>>> >>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >>>> >>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >>>> them. >>>> >>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >>>> WikiLeaks.ch. >>>> >>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >>>> problem." >>>> >>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >>>> >>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >>>> >>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >>>> suffix. >>>> However, the >>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >>>> >>>> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >>>> Friday morning, >>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >>>> still being done by everydns. >>>> >>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >>>> relationship with the website." >>>> >>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >>>> >>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >>>> >>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >>>> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >>>> web services director, this morning launched >>>> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >>>> >>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >>>> service said that >>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >>>> everydns.net's terms of >>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >>>> Thursday). >>>> >>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as >>>> guardian.co.uk, into >>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >>>> provided one via Twitter or other means. >>>> >>>> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been >>>> going on all >>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >>>> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables >>>> access >>>> to almost >>>> 500,000 other websites". >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >>>> resulted from its >>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >>>> >>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >>>> >>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >>>> >>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >>>> >>>> Amazon said: >>>> >>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >>>> >>>> It noted that: >>>> >>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >>>> >>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >>>> Iraq. >>>> >>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >>>> further donations to "keep us strong". >>>> >>>> Archives >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >>>> | >>>> Modify>>> 8 >>>> 6e >>>> d04cc> >>>> >>> cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >>>> Now>>> 5 >>>> -e >>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>>> >>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 5 00:45:07 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 00:45:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 2nd yep for Parminder's statement ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 10:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations Yep, what Parminder said. I believe we should make a generic statement along these lines ________________________________ From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530 To: Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations Hi All A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." Parminder On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital age. This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current enquiries. . Ian Peter From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 To: , Ian Peter Cc: Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between Lieberman and Bezos :) --c.a. On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe Liebermann.... From: Lee W McKnight Reply-To: , Lee W McKnight Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of service, below. Lee ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? Begin forwarded message: From: Sam�> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST To: Dave Farber IP> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? This may be of interest to the list. Sam� https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d ns -everydns WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered other customers' service � effectively pushing site off the web Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with them. On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, WikiLeaks.ch. Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious problem." "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing a new domain name � wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss suffix. However, the new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on Friday morning, is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is still being done by everydns. Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their relationship with the website." Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain � wikileaks.dd19.de � also appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based web services director, this morning launched Wikileeks.org.uk � a "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net service said that the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers � who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net � meant that the leaks site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken everydns.net's terms of service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday). DNS services translate a website name, such as guardian.co.uk, into machine-readable "IP quads" � in that case 77.91.249.30, so that http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the site is only reachable via IP address � but WikiLeaks has not yet provided one via Twitter or other means. Everydns.net said that the attacks � which have been going on all week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service � "threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites". WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has resulted from its failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking of thousands of US diplomatic cables. US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of the data � and who has influenced at least one other US company to withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". Amazon said: "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them. There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content� that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." It noted that: "When companies or people go about securing and storing large quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for further donations to "keep us strong". Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Dec 5 02:23:42 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:23:42 +1100 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Just a couple of thoughts on this - Should we use trans-jurisdictional rather than trans-border? Can we add “consistent” to globally democratic etc? Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530 To: Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations Hi All A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." Parminder On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 >> To: , Ian >> Peter >> Cc: Lee W McKnight >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like >> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between >> Lieberman and Bezos :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, >>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe >>> Liebermann.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> From: Lee W McKnight >>>> Reply-To: , >>>> Lee W McKnight >>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >>>> >>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms >>>> of >>>> service, below. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >>>> To: ip >>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: Sam> >>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >>>> To: Dave Farber IP> >>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>>> >>>> This may be of interest to the list. >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net->>>> d >>>> ns >>>> -everydns >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >>>> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site >>>> endangered >>>> other >>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >>>> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org >>>> address. >>>> Photograph: Joe >>>> Raedle/Getty Images >>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >>>> >>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >>>> >>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >>>> them. >>>> >>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >>>> WikiLeaks.ch. >>>> >>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >>>> problem." >>>> >>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >>>> >>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >>>> >>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >>>> suffix. >>>> However, the >>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >>>> >>>> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >>>> Friday morning, >>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >>>> still being done by everydns. >>>> >>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >>>> relationship with the website." >>>> >>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >>>> >>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >>>> >>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >>>> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >>>> web services director, this morning launched >>>> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >>>> >>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >>>> service said that >>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >>>> everydns.net's terms of >>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >>>> Thursday). >>>> >>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as >>>> guardian.co.uk, into >>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >>>> provided one via Twitter or other means. >>>> >>>> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been >>>> going on all >>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >>>> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables >>>> access >>>> to almost >>>> 500,000 other websites". >>>> >>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >>>> resulted from its >>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >>>> >>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >>>> >>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >>>> >>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >>>> >>>> Amazon said: >>>> >>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >>>> >>>> It noted that: >>>> >>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >>>> >>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >>>> Iraq. >>>> >>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >>>> further donations to "keep us strong". >>>> >>>> Archives >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >>>> | >>>> Modify>>> 8 >>>> 6e >>>> d04cc> >>>> >>> cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >>>> Now>>> 5 >>>> -e >>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>>> >>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 03:00:33 2010 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:00:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples: - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime. - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term of services found. (e.g. Brazil example). - Measurement of the impact of IG on development. I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing mechanisms. Best, Miguel On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' > > Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that > > "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." > > Parminder > > > > > On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: Lee W McKnight > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like > to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between > Lieberman and Bezos :) > > --c.a. > > On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe > Liebermann.... > > > > > > > From: Lee W McKnight > Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their > cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of > service, below. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Sam > > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST > To: Dave Farber IP> > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > This may be of interest to the list. > > Sam > https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d > ns > -everydns > > WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name > Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered > other > customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web > Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday > guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT > > WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. > Photograph: Joe > Raedle/Getty Images > The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against > WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after > Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. > > The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week > this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. > > Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland > security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping > sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with > them. > > On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic > documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the > world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS > address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, > WikiLeaks.ch. > > Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the > "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious > problem." > > "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off > alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. > > The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks > at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to > prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense > cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. > > The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing > a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss > suffix. > However, the > new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks > has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. > > The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on > Friday morning, > is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is > still being done by everydns. > > Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published > data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks > diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the > company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data > from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe > Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he > called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their > relationship with the website." > > Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, > wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been > applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." > > Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec > Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has > been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under > pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. > > A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ > wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also > appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in > California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain > names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based > web services director, this morning launched > Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a > "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. > > In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net > service said that > the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers > ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks > site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. > That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken > everydns.net's terms of > service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST > Thursday). > > DNS services translate a website name, such as > guardian.co.uk, into > machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that > http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the > site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet > provided one via Twitter or other means. > > Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been > going on all > week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's > more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability > of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables > access > to almost > 500,000 other websites". > > WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns > said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has > resulted from its > failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." > > The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a > determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point > of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking > of thousands of US diplomatic cables. > > US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove > any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting > of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but > last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to > pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of > the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to > withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. > > In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government > inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". > > Amazon said: > > "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does > have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not > following them. There were several parts they were violating. For > example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary > volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing > could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that > they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." > > It noted that: > > "When companies or people go about securing and storing large > quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this > data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our > terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." > > But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by > the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from > WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and > Iraq. > > Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new > DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS > services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for > further donations to "keep us strong". > > Archives > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] > | > Modify 6e > d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now -e > 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Dec 5 04:11:58 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:11:58 +1100 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great start to a list Miguel. Although it may be contentious, I would also add dealing with illegal and/or offensive content. Consistency, a policy framework and a set of principles for appropriate action mechanisms here would IMHO be far better than the current ad hoc removal or blocking of sites by a variety of players for a variety of dubious reasons. Ian Peter > From: Miguel Alcaine > Reply-To: , Miguel Alcaine > > Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:00:33 +0100 > To: , parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations > > Dear all, > > It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder > to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples: > > - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in > trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime. > - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National > Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) > - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the > UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term > of services found. (e.g. Brazil example). > - Measurement of the impact of IG on development. > > I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global > internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing > mechanisms. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Hi All >> >> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since >> the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related >> policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' >> >> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that >> >> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and >> Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be >> addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional >> mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public >> policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative >> manner." >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut >> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. >> >> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, >> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to >> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital >> age. >> >> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is >> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current >> enquiries. >> >> . >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 >> To: , Ian Peter >> Cc: Lee W McKnight >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like >> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between >> Lieberman and Bezos :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, >> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe >> Liebermann.... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Lee W McKnight >> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of >> service, below. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Sam > >> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >> To: Dave Farber IP> >> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> This may be of interest to the list. >> >> Sam >> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d >> ns >> -everydns >> >> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered >> other >> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >> >> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. >> Photograph: Joe >> Raedle/Getty Images >> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >> >> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >> >> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >> them. >> >> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >> WikiLeaks.ch. >> >> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >> problem." >> >> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >> >> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >> >> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >> suffix. >> However, the >> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >> >> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >> Friday morning, >> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >> still being done by everydns. >> >> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >> relationship with the website." >> >> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >> >> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >> >> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >> web services director, this morning launched >> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >> >> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >> service said that >> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >> everydns.net's terms of >> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >> Thursday). >> >> DNS services translate a website name, such as >> guardian.co.uk, into >> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >> provided one via Twitter or other means. >> >> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been >> going on all >> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables >> access >> to almost >> 500,000 other websites". >> >> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >> resulted from its >> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >> >> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >> >> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >> >> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >> >> Amazon said: >> >> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >> >> It noted that: >> >> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >> >> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >> Iraq. >> >> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >> further donations to "keep us strong". >> >> Archives >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >> | >> Modify> 6e >> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >> Now> -e >> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 pouzin at well.com Sun Dec 5 06:27:22 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:27:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com> References: <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US? - - - As we may observe, China and USA (among others) are countries where shutting off web sites and revoking domain names result from government decisions. This is a wake-up call for clients of US registries such as .com, .net, .org, and about all TLD's feeding ICANN cash cow. Luckily open roots are in the offing to provide safer harbors. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 5 07:02:38 2010 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:02:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Why Amazon caved, and what it means for Rest of us - columbia journalism review Message-ID: <4CFB7F5E.9060102@gmail.com> The News Frontier --- December 3, 2010 10:20 AM Why Amazon Caved, and What It Means for the Rest of Us A Q&A with Ethan Zuckerman By Lauren Kirchner Amazon Web Services dropped WikiLeaks material from its servers on Tuesday, a move that is widely assumed to be a direct response to pressure from the Senate Homeland Security Committee. A statement from Amazon disputed that, stating that they kicked WikiLeaks off for violating the terms of service: "For example, our terms of service state that 'you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content... that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.'" It's not the first time the company has pulled something like this. Just last year , Amazon "remotely deleted" the e-editions of two books that customers had already downloaded to their Kindle readers, after it was discovered that the books' seller did not have the rights to them. (And just their luck: the public relations headache that resulted from the deletion was no doubt amplified by the fact that the two books in question happened to be by George Orwell.) As Gawker's Ryan Tate notes, Amazon's policy of which content partners it will protect, and when, and why, is inconsistent and unpredictable , to say the least. TechPresident's Micah Sifry reported Wednesday that, according to the Senate Homeland Security Committee spokesperson Leslie Phillips, the committee has not contacted any other tech companies whose services WikiLeaks has utilized, like Twitter or Facebook. However, Phillips added, "Senator Lieberman hopes that what has transpired with Amazon will send a message to other companies." At least one other company got that "message" loud and clear. Open-source data visualization program Tableau Public also removed WikiLeaks-published visualizations from its site, a decision which a statement on the Tableau website acknowledges was made in response to the public request by Lieberman to do so. So what does that mean for the rest of us? CJR assistant editor Lauren Kirchner spoke with Ethan Zuckerman, researcher for the Berkman Center for Internet and Society ---who has written about the tricky intersection of public space (the Internet) and private infrastructure (service providers)---about the broader implications of this news. *Why do you think WikiLeaks chose Amazon servers in the first place?* My guess is that it's a very easy way to buy a lot of server capacity really fast. I mean, WikiLeaks was facing two things at the same time: they were under tremendous load, probably in the neighborhood of ten to fifteen gigabits per second of traffic, and at the same time they were experiencing a DDos [distributed denial-of-service ] attack of two to four gigabits per second the first time around, and about ten the second time around. It's a pretty common tactic when you're under DDoS to try to get onto a pretty big server farm. If you're both trying to serve an enormous amount of traffic and cope with DDos, Amazon makes very good sense, actually. You're going to pay for it, but I don't think that was their big constraint; their big constraint was trying to stay up in the face of all the interest in the documents. *To what extent is a company like Amazon legally responsible for documents it hosts?* That is an incredibly complicated question. Everything has to go under the I Am Not a Lawyer disclaimer here. Essentially, there are real questions about what the legal liability is, in dealing with any of the WikiLeaks material. Different lawyers might answer that question very differently. Generally speaking, though, there are a good number of protections of internet service providers against things like copyright infringement, through things like the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998], which basically says, as long as you follow this process correctly, you're not going to be held liable for contributory copyright infringement. But to the best of my knowledge, no one's put anything together essentially saying, here's the policy you should go through if you are alerted that you are holding government secrets. I think where I and Rebecca [MacKinnon ] and others have criticized Amazon's move is that it's not clear that they actually received any legal notice; it sounds like what it amounted to was essentially just political pressure. *I know this is just conjecture here, but if Amazon had pushed back against the Senate Homeland Security Committee, do you think the Committee would have threatened legal action? What's the nature of the threat there?* The interesting thing about it is, the actual cables, the actual data in question, wasn't being distributed on Amazon servers. That's being hosted on a peer-to-peer network, so what Amazon was distributing was basically the index page: 'here's what we have, here's the link to the torrent files.' So the truth is, you'd have a hard time getting an injunction saying that Amazon was contributing to espionage or to the dissemination of stolen goods, because in fact, all they were really doing was hosting the HTML page that said, here's how to go get this on bit torrent. As far as we can tell, no one did take legal action to force Amazon's hand; it just responded to pressure. All of that, to me, makes it look pretty egregious, and should raise some questions for anyone who's a customer of Amazon's web services. *When WikiLeaks got the boot from Amazon, they wrote on Twitter , "If Amazon is so uncomfortable with the First Amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books." Do you consider this a First Amendment issue?* The First Amendment is what everyone loves invoking. But of course the First Amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law." And I didn't see Congress passing any legislation here. Here's the thing. Amazon is perfectly, legally justified in kicking customers off its service for any reason. They do have to realize that there are enormous PR implications when they do so. What Amazon is asserting here is that they are willing to remove content based on political pressure, or based on the perception of the offensiveness of that content. What's really hard about this is that we perceive the web to be a public space, a place where you should be able to go and set up your soapbox and say whatever you want to say to the world. The truth is, the web is almost entirely privately held. So what happens here is that we have a normative understanding that we should treat this like public space---that you should have rights to speak, that no one should constrain your rights---but then you discover that, basically, you're holding a political rally in a shopping mall. This is commercial speech, controlled by commercial rules. My sense is that companies try really, really hard not to assert their corporate imperatives, and to say, 'we're going to silent speech,' because that makes people really uncomfortable. But in this case, I think Amazon probably did a mental calculation and said, 'if we don't do this, we're going to end up the subject of a boycott on Fox News, and that's coming right before the Christmas season, we can't afford that.' I have no way of justifying that statement; that's a speculation. But I understand why they might be concerned about this. What I actually think we might want to do, on a policy standpoint, is to try to obligate Internet service providers to protect speech in a way that recognizes that it functions as public speech. If there were a way for Amazon to say, 'actually, we can't remove this, these people have a right to speak unless someone provides an injunction to prove that this is illegal,' that would save them from being the subject of this CJR article at the moment. *There's definitely an inherent compromise at play here. At CJR, for instance, we occasionally upload videos to our site, and for that we use YouTube or Vimeo. The great thing about those services, of course, is that they're free and easy to use. But the downside is we don't have control then over that content, and who might have access to it, who might erase it, etcetera, because those companies don't have an obligation to us, to protect our material that we've uploaded. Do you think that media organizations---and everyone---should be more aware of this kind of compromise? I realize that's a pretty leading question at this point....* You're leading the question, but it's a place I'm happy to be led. I wrote a piece in October called "Public Space, Private Infrastructure" based on a talk I gave at the Open Video Conference, in which I talked about what you're getting at. I talked about a friend of mine, Wael Abbas, an Egyptian activist who has been responsible for posting more than 200 videos that expose the police brutality and abuse in Egypt on YouTube. At one point, YouTube reacted and pulled them all down. What I said was, 'I know you all are expecting me to say, YouTube is evil, don't ever use it'; but actually what I said was that he was right to use YouTube. The reason being, his blog is under a DDoS attack all the time. If he tried to host his own videos, he'd never manage to keep his blog up. Just the infrastructure required to make those videos accessible to the world, and to protect them from attack, basically requires you to crouch under a big rock. YouTube is one of the biggest rocks out there; it makes perfect sense that you'd want to keep your speech there. However, you have to realize that you're then dependent on that organization. So you need to choose organizations that have a good track record of protecting people's rights. YouTube actually does; Facebook, for instance, doesn't. We're starting to sort of get a sense for who is better and worse at this. Ideally you'd like to use an organization that has someone who's dedicated to human rights issues, and whom you can contact if there is a human rights violation related to a takedown of your stuff. The truth is, if you decide to go it alone, do it yourself, you might find yourself in the situation that my friends recently found themselves in, in Zimbabwe. They run a leading human rights site, and they had purchased hosting by Bluehost, which is a hosting provider. Bluehost woke up one day and said, we shouldn't be providing services to people in Zimbabwe. Basically it was based on a terrible misinterpretation of U.S. trade sanctions, which are against Bob Mugabe, not against everyone in the country. But they removed the site. Unless you have your own T3 running to your own server, the Internet is privately held. And at some point, you're going to run into a corporation, and that corporation's decisions determine whether you stay online or not. And that is troublesome. *In a way, this reminds me of the warrantless wiretapping controversy. Americans tend to think of phone calls as private---or they used to, anyway---but apparently phone companies can make secret deals with the government to let them listen in whenever they want, and do so without telling their customers. That came as a shock to most people.* But at least that's the /government/, right? As absurd and horrible as all of that is, and was, the Amazon situation in some ways is even worse. This wasn't a government decision, this was a corporate decision. If the U.S. government had somehow managed to get an injunction for some court system ordering Amazon to take this down, I would then be asking questions about whether that moved correctly through the legal channels. But what happened here, instead, is that a powerful senator called up Amazon and said, "This is terrible, do the right thing," and they caved. That should send a message to anyone who is working with Amazon, that Amazon might make the decision to stop providing you services based on your content, or based on a complaint. That's worrisome. *You said that people should be choosing their service providers carefully, based on the companies' human rights history, or a person on staff who is dedicated to those types of issues. But is that information that people typically have access to?* I think that it's information that we're only going to get through better press coverage of this. I think this is a new issue for most people. I think that most people just haven't thought through this at all. And when people respond to something like WikiLeaks getting cut off of Amazon by saying, 'This is a First Amendment issue,' it shows you how little people actually know about what's going on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 5 10:55:57 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 10:55:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I've decided to go to New York City on December 14 - thanks to ISOC-NY chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible. I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better than one. Please let me know who else from this group is going. Let me know how I can be of assistance in representing the view of IGC at this meeting, both procedurally and substantively. On substance, if there are specific consensus statements that need to be advanced, or issues that we have all agreed to prioritize, please call my attention to them. I admit that I have not been able to closely follow IGC list in the past week as the school semester here concludes. Procedurally, I would like to know more about what are our access rights at this meeting and who do we need to work with to get them. --MM From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:59 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote: A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus on the following two questions. 1. What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? 2. What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international cooperation in these areas? Thanks, I missed this. Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions? It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gadi at anime.org Sun Dec 5 11:01:35 2010 From: gadi at anime.org (Gadi Evron) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 18:01:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] (wikileaks) Google as DNS? Message-ID: <2ACAE89A-10DE-44A2-AF44-BC94398C2704@anime.org> I withhold comment... "discuss amongst yourselves". Best, Gadi. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [funsec] And Google becomes a DNS.. Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:34:50 +0200 From: Imri Goldberg To: funsec Found on reddit: http://i.imgur.com/Q5SVu.png -- Imri Goldberg -------------------------------------- http://plnnr.com/ - automatic trip planning http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/ -------------------------------------- -- insert signature here ---- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 5 11:19:58 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:19:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Are you going to answer my question, (to wit; Can I steal your > documents and publish them online as part of my FOE?) ...or should I > give up? > I'll answer this. At the legal level: In the US there are well-established legal precedents regarding journalists and their sources which basically say, "it's your job, government, to protect your information; if you fail at that and a journalist gets their hands on some juicy stuff that puts you in a bad light, you can prosecute the leaker but not the publisher." See NY Times and the Pentagon papers case. The complication with Wikileaks is that it is not a traditional journalist. To some of us, that doesn't matter. At a normative level, if "your documents" refers to a government that is supposed to derive its legitimacy from the people and those documents reveal seriously unethical or illegal behavior with real or potential ill effects on the public, then I believe that a whistle-blower is justified in leaking them and think we owe them a debt of gratitude for taking the risks to do so. Unless you believe that ITforChange holds some kind of global public trust and/or that its actions are seriously damaging, and criminal or unethical in a way that _requires_ public exposure, then I see no justification in your stealing their docs and publishing them. Accordingly I do not support Lieberman's actions or Amazon's cowardly compliance (though I understand Amazon's motives). This is all about maintaining the trappings and illusions of US power, nothing more. This is about asserting their pride and arrogance at our diplomat's ability to "operate" unaccountably. It shakes them up in a way that they really need to have done. The dialogue around this issue here in the US is ridiculous: the rightwingers try to portray Assange not as an advocate of transparency and information freedom but as an "enemy of the United States" and call for the death penalty. So there is a very clear clash here between the nation-state paradigm, the competition among states for supremacy, and the openness of information associated with the internet. I hope everyone here understands where I stand on that one. Of course, public disclosure of information can be abused, it would be silly not to admit that, too. Think of the college student who videotaped his closeted roommate in a gay encounter and put it on Facebook. For every new capability opened up by the internet there are new problems. This IS a freedom of expression issue _and_ it is a national security issue, _and_ it is potentially a privacy issue. --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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Dec 5 11:28:58 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:28:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I’ve decided to go to New York City on December 14 – thanks to ISOC-NY > chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible. > > I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better > than one. > > > Sounds good. To complete the hydra, have we figured out who to deal with at CONGO? Greetings from Cartagena, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Dec 5 11:30:18 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:30:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <07C3D383-E7F0-45C6-90F2-E6F38AE122C0@acm.org> Hi, I have thought of going down since I will be in Providence. Not sure yet though. a. On 5 Dec 2010, at 10:55, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I’ve decided to go to New York City on December 14 – thanks to ISOC-NY chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible. > I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better than one. Please let me know who else from this group is going. > > Let me know how I can be of assistance in representing the view of IGC at this meeting, both procedurally and substantively. > On substance, if there are specific consensus statements that need to be advanced, or issues that we have all agreed to prioritize, please call my attention to them. I admit that I have not been able to closely follow IGC list in the past week as the school semester here concludes. > > Procedurally, I would like to know more about what are our access rights at this meeting and who do we need to work with to get them. > > --MM > > > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:59 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs > > On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote: > > > A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus on the following two questions. > > • What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms? > • What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international cooperation in these areas? > > Thanks, I missed this. Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions? It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions. > -- > 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 11:32:28 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:32:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: References: <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm about to renew some domain names, and if the Terms of Service (to date, unknown to me in this particular), happen to contain the term apparently relied upon by everydns that being subject to a DDOS attack (a criminal act) is a violation by ME of their terms of service, I'm going to hold off on renewing and tell them why. I realize it's possible all other hosts and sellers of domain names might have the same language somewhere, especially with legal boilerplate language being such as it is and the rampant extent of copycat lawyers who try to give corporate or ISP clients the most overbroad and overreaching claimed TOS rights as the lawyer can possibly dream up. Still, I have serious doubts about the enforceability of contractual terms that find ME in violation of terms of service for criminal acts against me that are the fault of someone else. Of course, the claimed TOS violation for not owning all rights in the material is a different argument. The lawyer who argued that one was misguided, in my opinion, for the federal government in the USA claims no copyright. They would be better off arguing the catchall warranty of "no violation of state or federal law" in the material posted. But then that falls into Assange's argument that censorship has been privatised and websites taken down for "illegality" without any due process much less a trial. Paul Lehto, J.D. PS I think it is important, on the general level, to not drop one's critical analysis of documents just because they claim to have been "leaked" via Wikileaks or anywhere else. While many are surely authentic, with such volumes as are present here, and with documents readily available electronically to relatively low level military people, the risk of capture is surely a known risk and therefore there could easily have been the foresight to have disinformation within that data stream and not just "information." To the extent, IF ANY, that this is true, the wikileaks documents constitute some of the most effective possible propaganda because they are immediately accepted on their face as true documents, a glimpse into the "inner workings" of government, and thus the statements in their pass straight into the history books (eventually) without question. If there were a few or a bunch of such plants, this would be a very clever way to write or rewrite history. Do I believe this to be the case? Not really, but the single document I saw on WORLD PERCEPTIONS of the USA as an exporter of terrorism failed to mention the USA government itself as being PERCEIVED anywhere around the world as such an exporter. Surely a CIA analyst is not under political restrictions when speaking about perceptions in other countries and can't really be quite that dumb or uninformed, so there's a tiny seed in my mind of doubt about the authenticity of at least that one single document I saw. But, at the end of the day, all I'm advocating is not belief or disbelief in authenticity, but just retaining one's usual circumspection and thoughtful analysis and not presuming everything is as it seems. That's the whole idea in the world of spooks, isn't it? That not all is exactly as it seems?? ;) Have fun wrapping your mind around this if you've even read this! :) On 12/5/10, Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US? > > - - - > > As we may observe, China and USA (among others) are countries where shutting > off web sites and revoking domain names result from government decisions. > > This is a wake-up call for clients of US registries such as .com, .net, > .org, and about all TLD's feeding ICANN cash cow. Luckily open roots are in > the offing to provide safer harbors. > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 5 11:45:33 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:45:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4CF9CFC6.6080508 at itforchange.net>, at 10:51:10 on Sat, 4 Dec 2010, parminder writes > >On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 > Dec 2010, parminder writes > Dear Roland, > At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my >> approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me >> say it >> again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD >> initiatives. >> Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and >> global democracy count for anything? > >> That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong > with the initiatives. > >Who decides what is wrong or not? > In the context of the initiatives mentioned - the countries who would sign up to them (or not). > >The corresponding question - since I >asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy >in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means. > The decision processes within those countries is a local issue. I'm not sure that we can assert that the need to have a democratic policy development process for Internet Governance, is enough to overthrow the local systems which already develop policy on thousands of other issues. > >For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global >democracy here worries me a lot. We've seen what happens when you try to organise 190 governments into a global telecoms policy development process - it's called the ITU. With that many people potentially having an opinion, and many issues to discuss, no wonder the result is 3 week meetings with 2,000 attendees. I don't know an easy way to scale that up to include multiple stakeholders from 190 countries. There's a danger of inventing a decision-making IGF, and I don't want to impose a discussion about that upon the list. -- 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 avri at acm.org Sun Dec 5 12:17:58 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:17:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <388AFEFC-257B-4788-83A5-24411953E37C@acm.org> I think making a generic statement along these lines would be a useful thing for the IGC to have done. I think that is would have to include a caveat that "in so far as they are not being addressed by existing mechanisms" and not to include the presumption that that this is the case for of those numerious trans-border issues. a. On 5 Dec 2010, at 00:45, Lee W McKnight wrote: > 2nd yep for Parminder's statement > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 10:54 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations > > Yep, what Parminder said. > > I believe we should make a generic statement along these lines > > > > > ________________________________ > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530 > To: > Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations > > Hi All > > A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' > > Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that > > "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." > > Parminder > > > > > On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: Lee W McKnight > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like > to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between > Lieberman and Bezos :) > > --c.a. > > On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe > Liebermann.... > > > > > > > > From: Lee W McKnight > Reply-To: , Lee W McKnight > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their > cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of > service, below. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Sam™> > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST > To: Dave Farber IP> > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > This may be of interest to the list. > > Sam™ > https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d > ns > -everydns > > WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name > Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered > other > customers' service – effectively pushing site off the web > Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday > guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT > > WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. > Photograph: Joe > Raedle/Getty Images > The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against > WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after > Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. > > The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week > this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. > > Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland > security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping > sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with > them. > > On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic > documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the > world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS > address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, > WikiLeaks.ch. > > Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the > "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious > problem." > > "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off > alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. > > The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks > at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to > prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense > cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. > > The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing > a new domain name – wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss > suffix. > However, the > new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks > has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. > > The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on > Friday morning, > is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is > still being done by everydns. > > Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published > data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks > diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the > company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data > from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe > Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he > called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their > relationship with the website." > > Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, > wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been > applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." > > Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec > Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has > been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under > pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. > > A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain – > wikileaks.dd19.de – also > appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in > California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain > names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based > web services director, this morning launched > Wikileeks.org.uk – a > "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. > > In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net > service said that > the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers > – who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net – meant that the leaks > site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. > That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken > everydns.net's terms of > service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST > Thursday). > > DNS services translate a website name, such as > guardian.co.uk, into > machine-readable "IP quads" – in that case 77.91.249.30, so that > http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the > site is only reachable via IP address – but WikiLeaks has not yet > provided one via Twitter or other means. > > Everydns.net said that the attacks – which have been > going on all > week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's > more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service – "threaten the stability > of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables > access > to almost > 500,000 other websites". > > WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns > said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has > resulted from its > failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." > > The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a > determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point > of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking > of thousands of US diplomatic cables. > > US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove > any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting > of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but > last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to > pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of > the data – and who has influenced at least one other US company to > withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. > > In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government > inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". > > Amazon said: > > "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does > have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not > following them. There were several parts they were violating. For > example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary > volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing > could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that > they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." > > It noted that: > > "When companies or people go about securing and storing large > quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this > data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our > terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." > > But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by > the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from > WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and > Iraq. > > Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new > DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS > services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for > further donations to "keep us strong". > > Archives > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] > | > Modify 6e > d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now -e > 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Dec 5 13:00:03 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 21:00:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ian, On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Great start to a list Miguel. Although it may be contentious, I would also > add dealing with illegal and/or offensive content. Consistency, a policy > framework and a set of principles for appropriate action mechanisms here > would IMHO be far better than the current ad hoc removal or blocking of > sites by a variety of players for a variety of dubious reasons. I think that your idea is predicated on the notion that gov'ts would give up a certain amount of sovereignty to a Global body empowered to act on these issues. I'm not sure, after WSIS, that I see that being a possibility. In other words, I'm thinking that "a variety of players for a variety of dubious reasons" will continue to carry out what they think are their national interests, without regard to any international agreements that may be made. What we have seen this week is that the old saw that "information wants to be free" is more powerful than even the most powerful government. -- 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 Sun Dec 5 16:58:51 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:58:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> First, Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to defend the ITU's honor : ) 1st international organization (you'd think the postal folks would have started to cooperate first at international level, but no, the techie telegraph operators led the way.) And you all like your GSM or 3G or 4G mobiles right, which work pretty well across borders these days? Ever hear of GPS? You can either thank the US air force or ITU for that, depending as it does on orbital arc allocations...and oh yeah someone to launch the satellites. Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users. Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder manner. Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course. See there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability is NOT the problem. Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure it never happens. So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty reasonable draft. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In message <4CF9CFC6.6080508 at itforchange.net>, at 10:51:10 on Sat, 4 Dec 2010, parminder writes > >On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 > Dec 2010, parminder writes > Dear Roland, > At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my >> approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me >> say it >> again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD >> initiatives. >> Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and >> global democracy count for anything? > >> That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong > with the initiatives. > >Who decides what is wrong or not? > In the context of the initiatives mentioned - the countries who would sign up to them (or not). > >The corresponding question - since I >asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy >in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means. > The decision processes within those countries is a local issue. I'm not sure that we can assert that the need to have a democratic policy development process for Internet Governance, is enough to overthrow the local systems which already develop policy on thousands of other issues. > >For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global >democracy here worries me a lot. We've seen what happens when you try to organise 190 governments into a global telecoms policy development process - it's called the ITU. With that many people potentially having an opinion, and many issues to discuss, no wonder the result is 3 week meetings with 2,000 attendees. I don't know an easy way to scale that up to include multiple stakeholders from 190 countries. There's a danger of inventing a decision-making IGF, and I don't want to impose a discussion about that upon the list. -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Dec 5 19:47:47 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:47:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder In-Reply-To: References: <004401cb94ca$ac151ac0$9d00a8c0@RJRTX690P>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> But wait there's more... Lee ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:43 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder Begin forwarded message: From: "RJR rjriley.com" > Date: December 5, 2010 5:20:49 PM EST To: dave at farber.net Subject: WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder Interesting claims, hard to tell what the motive may be. Ronald J Riley === WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder Selling secrets 'lucrative,' but 'usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit' ________________________________ Posted: December 05, 2010 2:40 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily One of the early members and co-founders of the tight-knit, secretive WikiLeaks operation charged today that the website and its co-founder, Julian Assange, sold intelligence information the site had obtained. John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business. Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents. More....http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345 Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 5 21:29:59 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:29:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG agenda survey Message-ID: Dear all, As you may know, an EuroDIG planning meeting took place in Geneva on 23 November. During this meeting the agenda of the 4th EuroDIG in Belgrade (30/31 May 2011) started to be discussed. EuroDIG team invite interested people to indicate their preferences in the *agenda survey *available here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/eurodig It will take you no more than 10 min to reply this survey. The results will be published in EuroDIG website and will be taken into account in the next planning meeting. The deadline to answer the survey is *December 17*. This survey is part of a broader initiative to promote e-participation in EuroDIG, which encompasses online participation in planning meetings, in the process of agenda setting and remote participation in EuroDIG. Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. You can send them to office at eurodig.org Best regards Marilia -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Dec 5 23:22:01 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:22:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] Deadline for further input into enhanced cooperation statement Message-ID: <5D762662-A828-4221-B1E3-BC529E046B0E@ciroap.org> David Allen who will be presenting the IGC's statement in New York (by summarising what we already put forward in writing at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43, and adding any further input) has asked that we try to finalise our further input by Wednesday, so that he has time to hone what he wants to say and to make sure that it fits into five minutes. So to try to draw things together by then, it seems to me that we probably have a good measure of support to add at least the following points to our statement: 1. Highlighting (since I don't think this is really a new point) that there are numerous Internet and IG-related trans-border issues that require urgent resolution but are not addressed by existing mechanisms, and that any institutional mechanisms needed to address these must do so in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner. 2. To give as an example of such an issue , the lack of any universal principles of framework to guide the resolution of transboundary jurisdiction disputes, which can involve the content host, content owner, content publisher, domain host, domain registrant, domain registrar, and domain registry and their respective countries. Maybe also others points, drawing on what Miguel wrote, but let's here from more voices on the list between now and Wednesday. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 6 01:07:47 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:07:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <89DCA5FE-4FB7-4330-9E16-FED40A331704@ciroap.org> On 06/12/2010, at 12:28 AM, William Drake wrote: > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I’ve decided to go to New York City on December 14 – thanks to ISOC-NY chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible. > > I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better than one. > Many thanks Milton, I'll send these details off list. > Sounds good. To complete the hydra, have we figured out who to deal with at CONGO? Yes, Liberato Bautista; we've been (attempting to get) in touch with him. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Dec 6 01:43:00 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:43:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments to Dec 17 CSTD IGF (WG) meeting? Message-ID: Dear list, Another open consultation meeting on IGF is scheduled to take place in Geneva on Dec. 17. Since we have not seen UN GA adopting the resolution yet, we are not sure if CSTD WG for IGF will be announced before this meeting or not. In any case, we need to prepare for the meeting. I plan to go to Geneva this time too, using my miles. Will there be others who may also join? We also need to consider what we are going to say, if any, to the answer of the questionnaire we submitted in November. FYI, our answers to the questionnaire on IGF improvement and the additional comments I made during Nov 24 meeting are now online at our website: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 Many thanks, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: IGCResponse_CSTD_IGFQnre_Nov19Clean.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 6 02:50:16 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:50:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Comments to Dec 17 CSTD IGF (WG) meeting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 15:43:00 on Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >Another open consultation meeting on IGF is scheduled to take >place in Geneva on Dec. 17. Since we have not seen UN GA >adopting the resolution yet, we are not sure if CSTD WG for IGF >will be announced before this meeting or not. The meeting on the 17th is the final day of the regular 2010-2011 CSTD intersessional panel, although it is titled "CSTD Working Group on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)" http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d03_en.pdf In the earlier "Roadmap" it says: "The outcome of the open consultations [24th November] will be used as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in December 2010." Which also suggests that they were expecting a formal meeting of the WG (whose composition would need to be decided ahead of the meeting). Perhaps I've missed an announcement that this is an "open" consultation (rather than restricted to ECOSOC accredited members and perhaps those WSIS-accredited agencies given a now-expired (but perhaps extended) five-year "trial membership"? -- 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 Mon Dec 6 03:45:38 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:45:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 16:58:51 on Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Lee W McKnight writes >First, > >Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to >defend the ITU's honor : ) ... > Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work >reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users. I wasn't intending to knock the ITU, although it's a spectator sport for many. I try to "walk a mile in their shoes" before criticising anyone, and in this case have attended about 20 full days of ITU meetings and conferences in person, and the same again by remote participation. >Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder >manner. There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be. >Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global >democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course. See >there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go >from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability >is NOT the problem. That's a bit like saying it would be easy for everyone to get into the governance of air traffic control, because planes fly everywhere. But that's an illusion. >Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure >it never happens. > >So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it >is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty >reasonable draft. If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement. -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Dec 6 05:12:12 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 02:12:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k30> Roland Perry wrote :  > There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there > are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership > organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a > member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be. May be You too, dear Roland, should be mindful that ITU is in charge of WSIS Follow-up process, which is (a) a multistakeholder-based one, and (b) focused on society (human, sociological, relational, communicational, economical, political, etc...) issues. But, at the same time ITU has two kinds of members : member states and "sector members" i.e. private sector members. CS may be present as "associated members" provided that they pay a couple of thousand swiss francs fees and that they work as bit players because they don't have the rights the secteor members benefit from ! Conclusion (a) : multistakeholder partnership is completely absent in this UN agency. Moreover, ITU is a technological agency dealing with telecoms worldwide standardization, development and -partially only- regulation. Take a look to its Constitution and Convention. Conclusion (b) : ITU doesn't have any knowledge and even any ability in society issues ! Unless it really opens itself to the CS which could -under certain conditions- contribute to "adapt" the ITU technological approach into an info society one. That was -and still is- the position of CSDPTT during the whole WSIS and since its very beginning. Therefore we asked the intergovernmemntal plenary to reform ITU as to be able to open itself to the CS and CSDPTT statement (presented at least three times from 2002 to 2005 ans since then regularly at the May meetings) was supported by a handful of CS orgs ... It'd be interesting to get the opinion of the list on this point. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT  Message du 06/12/10 09:47 > De : "Roland Perry" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs > > In message > <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, > at 16:58:51 on Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Lee W McKnight writes > >First, > > > >Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to > >defend the ITU's honor : ) > ... > > Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work > >reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users. > > I wasn't intending to knock the ITU, although it's a spectator sport for > many. I try to "walk a mile in their shoes" before criticising anyone, > and in this case have attended about 20 full days of ITU meetings and > conferences in person, and the same again by remote participation. > > >Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder > >manner. > > There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there > are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership > organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a > member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be. > > >Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global > >democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course. See > >there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go > >from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability > >is NOT the problem. > > That's a bit like saying it would be easy for everyone to get into the > governance of air traffic control, because planes fly everywhere. But > that's an illusion. > > >Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure > >it never happens. > > > >So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it > >is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty > >reasonable draft. > > If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance > of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing > everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement. > -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 6 07:09:14 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:09:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k30> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k30> Message-ID: In message <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www at wwinf1k30>, at 10:11:25 on Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Jean-Louis FULLSACK writes >Roland Perry wrote : > > > There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but >there >> are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership >> organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a >> member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be. > >May be You too, dear Roland, should be mindful that ITU is in charge of >WSIS Follow-up process, which is (a) a multistakeholder-based one, and >(b) focused on society (human, sociological, relational, >communicational, economical, political, etc...) issues. We should be careful not to confuse the meetings of the ITU itself, and those "external" meetings which the ITU organises. As a straw poll, I was accepted as a delegate to the recent WSIS Forum meeting in Geneva, in my private capacity. I'm sure others will have a similar experience. >But, at the same time ITU has two kinds of members : member states and >"sector members" i.e. private sector members. Indeed so, and over the last two years I have attended the ITU's meetings as a staffer of a Sector Member, but also as an "invited expert". (You can get into lots of meetings of various otherwise closed organisations that way). >CS may be present as "associated members" provided that they pay a >couple of thousand swiss francs fees and that they work as bit players >because they don't have the rights the secteor members benefit from ! An Associate Member is pretty much indistinguishable from a Sector Member, except for the one proviso that they have to nominate just one Study Group to attend, rather than all of them. There may be some other subtleties, because one of the long (felt like an hour) wrangles at WTDC Hyderbad this year was whether a particular resolution should refer to 'members' or 'Members', which meant deciding what was the difference between the two (associates don't have a Big-M apparently). But I didn't mention the ITU to spark a debate about membership fees - it was simply to highlight the size of organisation and number (and length) of meetings that result, when you have many decisions on multiple topics to bring to a large audience. >Conclusion (a) : >multistakeholder partnership is completely absent in this UN agency. It's not as simple as that. Agreed, there may currently be little civil society input into things they govern (like satellite slots), but there's a lot of partnership when involved in external activities like WSIS followup. >Moreover, ITU is a technological agency dealing with telecoms worldwide >standardization, development and -partially only- regulation. Take a >look to its Constitution and Convention. Conclusion (b) : ITU doesn't >have any knowledge and even any ability in society issues ! In the same sense that Civil Society has no ability in telecoms standardisation and development issues? If so, why would CS want to participate in ITU core issues... The reality is that there's more overlap of knowledge and ability between different stakeholder groups than is commonly acknowledged. >Unless it really opens itself to the CS which could -under certain >conditions- contribute to "adapt" the ITU technological approach into >an info society one. That was -and still is- the position of CSDPTT >during the whole WSIS and since its very beginning. Therefore we asked >the intergovernmemntal plenary to reform ITU as to be able to open >itself to the CS and CSDPTT statement (presented at least three times >from 2002 to 2005 ans since then regularly at the May meetings) was >supported by a handful of CS orgs ... >It'd be interesting to get the opinion of the list on this point. Of course - that's what the list is 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 6 08:05:37 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:35:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4CFCDFA1.1090701@itforchange.net> Thanks Miguel for the list. Some of these overlap with IT for Change list in its submission. We have mentioned a dev agenda in IG in rather more elaborate terms, but I agree, your wording of the dev agenda should be good enough for a start. Submitting for the lists consideration, a couple of more points. If necessary, shorter and simpler language can be used for each. * Global Internet traffic flows – in terms of interconnection systems as well as globally open architecture of such flows (global net neutrality, also including global policy frameworks for downstream net neutrality) * Resolving specific cross-border Internet related issues (content, security, privacy, crime, access to knowledge, commerce etc) (a Council of Europe expert group is right now looking into possible new mechanisms for addressing such cross-border issues) * Globally democratic regulation in public interest of global digital corporations that have huge monopolies across the globe, and have a defining impact on our emerging social systems, including in the areas of knowledge, media, market, politics and culture (due to their immense global power, national regulations, especially in less powerful countries, have little leverage over these hegemonic digital corporations) * Globally democratic political supervision of technical governance of Critical Internet Resources, without replacing/subverting the current governance systems (which includes domain name systems, IP allocation, root servers, security systems at the root level etc) Parminder On Sunday 05 December 2010 01:30 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear all, > > It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder > to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples: > > - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in > trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime. > - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National > Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) > - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the > UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term > of services found. (e.g. Brazil example). > - Measurement of the impact of IG on development. > > I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global > internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing > mechanisms. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' >> >> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that >> >> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut >> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. >> >> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, >> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to >> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital >> age. >> >> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is >> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current >> enquiries. >> >> . >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 >> To:, Ian Peter >> Cc: Lee W McKnight >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like >> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between >> Lieberman and Bezos :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, >> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe >> Liebermann.... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Lee W McKnight >> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their >> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of >> service, below. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Sam> >> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >> To: Dave Farber IP> >> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >> >> This may be of interest to the list. >> >> Sam >> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d >> ns >> -everydns >> >> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered >> other >> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT >> >> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. >> Photograph: Joe >> Raedle/Getty Images >> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >> >> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >> >> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >> them. >> >> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >> WikiLeaks.ch. >> >> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >> problem." >> >> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >> >> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >> >> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >> suffix. >> However, the >> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >> >> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on >> Friday morning, >> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >> still being done by everydns. >> >> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >> relationship with the website." >> >> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >> >> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >> >> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >> web services director, this morning launched >> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >> >> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net >> service said that >> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >> everydns.net's terms of >> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >> Thursday). >> >> DNS services translate a website name, such as >> guardian.co.uk, into >> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >> provided one via Twitter or other means. >> >> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been >> going on all >> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables >> access >> to almost >> 500,000 other websites". >> >> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has >> resulted from its >> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >> >> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >> >> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >> >> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >> >> Amazon said: >> >> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >> >> It noted that: >> >> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >> >> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >> Iraq. >> >> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >> further donations to "keep us strong". >> >> Archives >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >> | >> Modify> 6e >> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >> Now> -e >> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 6 08:44:28 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:44:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <4CFCDFA1.1090701@itforchange.net> References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> <4CFCDFA1.1090701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I am particularly gives rise to concern by the following: "*Globally democratic regulation in public interest of global digital corporations that have huge monopolies across the globe, and have a defining impact on our emerging social systems, including in the areas of knowledge, media, market, politics and culture (due to their immense global power, national regulations, especially in less powerful countries, have little leverage over these hegemonic digital corporations)*" For developing countries, we experience the power of these digital business because the countries do not participate in the development of search technology solutions tailored to their context. Baudouin 2010/12/6 parminder > Thanks Miguel for the list. Some of these overlap with IT for Change list > in its submission. We have mentioned a dev agenda in IG in rather more > elaborate terms, but I agree, your wording of the dev agenda should be good > enough for a start. > > Submitting for the lists consideration, a couple of more points. If > necessary, shorter and simpler language can be used for each. > > > - > > Global Internet traffic flows – in terms of interconnection systems as > well as globally open architecture of such flows (global net neutrality, > also including global policy frameworks for downstream net neutrality) > - > > Resolving specific cross-border Internet related issues (content, > security, privacy, crime, access to knowledge, commerce etc) (a Council of > Europe expert group is right now looking into possible new mechanisms for > addressing such cross-border issues) > - > > Globally democratic regulation in public interest of global digital > corporations that have huge monopolies across the globe, and have a defining > impact on our emerging social systems, including in the areas of knowledge, > media, market, politics and culture (due to their immense global power, > national regulations, especially in less powerful countries, have little > leverage over these hegemonic digital corporations) > - > > Globally democratic political supervision of technical governance of > Critical Internet Resources, without replacing/subverting the current > governance systems (which includes domain name systems, IP allocation, root > servers, security systems at the root level etc) > > > Parminder > > > > > On Sunday 05 December 2010 01:30 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > Dear all, > > It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder > to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples: > > - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in > trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime. > - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National > Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) > - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the > UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term > of services found. (e.g. Brazil example). > - Measurement of the impact of IG on development. > > I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global > internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing > mechanisms. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Hi All > > A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' > > Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that > > "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner." > > Parminder > > > > > On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues, > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: Lee W McKnight > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like > to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between > Lieberman and Bezos :) > > --c.a. > > On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds, > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe > Liebermann.... > > > > > > > From: Lee W McKnight > Reply-To: , Lee W McKnight > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their > cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of > service, below. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Sam > > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST > To: Dave Farber IP > > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > This may be of interest to the list. > > Samhttps://www.mensa.org/user/6020http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d > ns > -everydns > > WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name > Everydns.net says attack against leaks site endangered > other > customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web > Charles Arthur and Josh Hallidayguardian.co.uk , Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT > > WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org address. > Photograph: Joe > Raedle/Getty Images > The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against > WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after > Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. > > The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week > this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. > > Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland > security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping > sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with > them. > > On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic > documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the > world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS > address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, > WikiLeaks.ch . > > Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the > "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious > problem." > > "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off > alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. > > The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks > at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to > prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense > cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. > > The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing > a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch , with the Swiss > suffix. > However, the > new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks > has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. > > The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only surfaced on > Friday morning, > is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is > still being done by everydns. > > Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published > data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks > diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the > company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data > from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe > Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he > called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their > relationship with the website." > > Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, > wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been > applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." > > Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec > Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has > been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under > pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. > > A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also > appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in > California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain > names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based > web services director, this morning launchedWikileeks.org.uk ­ a > "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. > > In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net > service said that > the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers > ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks > site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. > That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had brokeneverydns.net 's terms of > service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST > Thursday). > > DNS services translate a website name, such asguardian.co.uk , into > machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so thathttp://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the > site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet > provided one via Twitter or other means. > > Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have been > going on all > week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's > more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability > of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables > access > to almost > 500,000 other websites". > > WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns > said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has > resulted from its > failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." > > The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a > determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point > of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking > of thousands of US diplomatic cables. > > US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove > any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting > of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but > last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to > pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of > the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to > withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. > > In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government > inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". > > Amazon said: > > "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does > have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not > following them. There were several parts they were violating. For > example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary > volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing > could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that > they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." > > It noted that: > > "When companies or people go about securing and storing large > quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this > data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our > terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." > > But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by > the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from > WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and > Iraq. > > Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new > DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS > services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for > further donations to "keep us strong". > > Archives > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | > Modify 6e > d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now -e > 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Dec 6 09:17:04 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:17:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] ICANN blog : US Government Opposes Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some of you must have noticed this already, but interesting. Those in Cartagena now, please follow this up. thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh Date: 2010/12/3 Subject: [At-Large] ICANN blog : US Government Opposes Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena To: LACRALO discussion list , At-Large Worldwide http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/us-government-opposes-launch-of-new-gtld-program-in-cartagena/ US DoC letter : http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf US Government Opposes Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena by Rod Beckstrom We appreciate the many comments received so far on the draft Applicant Guidebook in its five full versions. We thank the community and all who contributed for their engagement, thoughts and opinions during the course of this process. One of the most recent comments we have received is a letter today from the US Department of Commerce (DoC). ICANN’s success and legitimacy derive from the multistakeholder model, the basis on which new gTLD policy was developed. The policy process decision to undertake this program was approved by the GNSO Council in 2007 and adopted by ICANN’s board of directors in 2008. In the Affirmation of Commitments, the US government and ICANN reconfirmed our mutual commitment to the multistakeholder model. ICANN confirmed our commitment to solicit public comment and to hear all voices. As with all contributions, ICANN will give DoC’s comments careful consideration as part of the implementation of the GNSO policy. ------------ _______________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 6 11:10:08 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:10:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> What is missing from Parminder's list: you need more than "globally democratic" and "fully participative," you also need agreed principles which _limit_ the authority of majoritarian or "participatory" institutions in ways that secure individual rights and freedoms. Democracy without that is nothing more than another form of tyranny - especially given the vastly heterogeneous nature of the global polity, in which various coalitions and factions can gang up on others. Therefore I agree with Miquel that we need something akin to an Internet charter, or at least to reaffirm existing rights under the ICCPR, and to specifically call attention to the fact that end users have rights that any form of global collaboration cannot transgress. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations > > Dear all, > > It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder > to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples: > > - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in > trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime. > - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National > Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) > - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the > UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term > of services found. (e.g. Brazil example). > - Measurement of the impact of IG on development. > > I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global > internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing > mechanisms. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also > since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet > related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' > > > > Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that > > > > "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet > governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, > but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what > institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important > Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, > inclusive and fully-participative manner." > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to > shut > > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage > issues, > > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting > unilaterally to > > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the > digital > > age. > > > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted > principles is > > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > > enquiries. > > > > . > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 > > To: , Ian Peter > > Cc: Lee W McKnight > > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > > > Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like > > to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" > between > > Lieberman and Bezos :) > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy > grounds, > > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from > Joe > > Liebermann.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Lee W McKnight > > Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight > > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 > > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > > > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re > their > > cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating > terms of > > service, below. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM > > To: ip > > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Sam > > > > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST > > To: Dave Farber IP> > > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > > > This may be of interest to the list. > > > > Sam > > https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked- > off-net-d > > ns > > -everydns > > > > WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name > > Everydns.net says attack against leaks site > endangered > > other > > customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web > > Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday > > guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 > 07.54 GMT > > > > WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org > address. > > Photograph: Joe > > Raedle/Getty Images > > The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against > > WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after > > Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. > > > > The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week > > this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. > > > > Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland > > security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping > > sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with > > them. > > > > On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic > > documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the > > world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS > > address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, > > WikiLeaks.ch. > > > > Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the > > "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious > > problem." > > > > "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off > > alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. > > > > The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks > > at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to > > prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense > > cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. > > > > The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing > > a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss > > suffix. > > However, the > > new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks > > has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. > > > > The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only > surfaced on > > Friday morning, > > is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is > > still being done by everydns. > > > > Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published > > data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks > > diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the > > company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data > > from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe > > Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he > > called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their > > relationship with the website." > > > > Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, > > wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been > > applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." > > > > Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec > > Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has > > been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under > > pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. > > > > A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ > > wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also > > appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in > > California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain > > names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based > > web services director, this morning launched > > Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a > > "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. > > > > In a statement on its website, the free > everydns.net > > service said that > > the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers > > ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks > > site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. > > That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken > > everydns.net's terms of > > service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST > > Thursday). > > > > DNS services translate a website name, such as > > guardian.co.uk, into > > machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that > > http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the > > site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet > > provided one via Twitter or other means. > > > > Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have > been > > going on all > > week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's > > more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability > > of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which > enables > > access > > to almost > > 500,000 other websites". > > > > WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns > > said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org > website has > > resulted from its > > failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." > > > > The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a > > determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point > > of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking > > of thousands of US diplomatic cables. > > > > US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove > > any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting > > of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but > > last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to > > pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of > > the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to > > withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. > > > > In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government > > inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". > > > > Amazon said: > > > > "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does > > have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not > > following them. There were several parts they were violating. For > > example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant > > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ > > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and > > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that > > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this > > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary > > volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing > > could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that > > they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." > > > > It noted that: > > > > "When companies or people go about securing and storing large > > quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this > > data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our > > terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." > > > > But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by > > the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from > > WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and > > Iraq. > > > > Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new > > DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS > > services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for > > further donations to "keep us strong". > > > > Archives > > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] > > | > > > Modify 15-8 > > 6e > > d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe > > > Now 3115 > > -e > > 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> > > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Mon Dec 6 11:48:47 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:18:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net> On Monday 06 December 2010 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > What is missing from Parminder's list: you need more than "globally democratic" and "fully participative," you also need agreed principles which _limit_ the authority of majoritarian or "participatory" institutions in ways that secure individual rights and freedoms. > > Democracy without that is nothing more than another form of tyranny - especially given the vastly heterogeneous nature of the global polity, in which various coalitions and factions can gang up on others. Therefore I agree with Miquel that we need something akin to an Internet charter, or at least to reaffirm existing rights under the ICCPR, and to specifically call attention to the fact that end users have rights that any form of global collaboration cannot transgress. > Milton One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention on the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, i agree completely. New institutional developments should be framed by and within codified principles. Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even 'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed checks and balances against majoritarianism. Why do you suspect otherwise. I do not understand why centuries old concepts and ideas like democracy are suddenly opened up to such unjustified criticism or critiques, as if something quite novel is being discussed or proposed. As for global policy being very heterogeneous (1) if we are to unite economically, we will need to make considerable progress politically as well.... the choice comes together (2) India has one seventh of the world's population, and is very very diverse.. .with a lot of real dangers of majoritarianism, we deal with them 'through democracy' not by putting 'riders to democracy' as you seem to be doing.... I take democracy to a political system which ensures rights of all people protecting diversities, and with all the needed checks against all kinds of dominances, including numbers based majoritarianism, which seem to be most bothering you :). Yes, indeed the sheer number of poor people in the world is scary :). Parminder > --MM > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine >> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:01 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations >> >> Dear all, >> >> It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder >> to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples: >> >> - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in >> trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime. >> - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National >> Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) >> - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the >> UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term >> of services found. (e.g. Brazil example). >> - Measurement of the impact of IG on development. >> >> I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global >> internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing >> mechanisms. >> >> Best, >> >> Miguel >> >> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also >>> >> since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet >> related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' >> >>> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that >>> >>> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet >>> >> governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, >> but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what >> institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important >> Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, >> inclusive and fully-participative manner." >> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to >>> >> shut >> >>> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. >>> >>> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage >>> >> issues, >> >>> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting >>> >> unilaterally to >> >>> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the >>> >> digital >> >>> age. >>> >>> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted >>> >> principles is >> >>> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current >>> enquiries. >>> >>> . >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 >>> To:, Ian Peter >>> Cc: Lee W McKnight >>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>> >>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like >>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" >>> >> between >> >>> Lieberman and Bezos :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy >>> >> grounds, >> >>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from >>> >> Joe >> >>> Liebermann.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Lee W McKnight >>> Reply-To:, Lee W McKnight >>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 >>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>> >>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re >>> >> their >> >>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating >>> >> terms of >> >>> service, below. >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM >>> To: ip >>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Sam >>> >> > >> >>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST >>> To: Dave Farber IP> >>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? >>> >>> This may be of interest to the list. >>> >>> Sam >>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020 >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked- >>> >> off-net-d >> >>> ns >>> -everydns >>> >>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name >>> Everydns.net says attack against leaks site >>> >> endangered >> >>> other >>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web >>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday >>> guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 December 2010 >>> >> 07.54 GMT >> >>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org >>> >> address. >> >>> Photograph: Joe >>> Raedle/Getty Images >>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against >>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after >>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. >>> >>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week >>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. >>> >>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland >>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping >>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with >>> them. >>> >>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic >>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the >>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS >>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, >>> WikiLeaks.ch. >>> >>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the >>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious >>> problem." >>> >>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off >>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. >>> >>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks >>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to >>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense >>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. >>> >>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing >>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch, with the Swiss >>> suffix. >>> However, the >>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks >>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. >>> >>> The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only >>> >> surfaced on >> >>> Friday morning, >>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is >>> still being done by everydns. >>> >>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published >>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks >>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the >>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data >>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe >>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he >>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their >>> relationship with the website." >>> >>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, >>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been >>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." >>> >>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec >>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has >>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under >>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. >>> >>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­ >>> wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also >>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in >>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain >>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based >>> web services director, this morning launched >>> Wikileeks.org.uk ­ a >>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. >>> >>> In a statement on its website, the free >>> >> everydns.net >> >>> service said that >>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers >>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks >>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. >>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken >>> everydns.net's terms of >>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST >>> Thursday). >>> >>> DNS services translate a website name, such as >>> guardian.co.uk, into >>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that >>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the >>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet >>> provided one via Twitter or other means. >>> >>> Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have >>> >> been >> >>> going on all >>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's >>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability >>> of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which >>> >> enables >> >>> access >>> to almost >>> 500,000 other websites". >>> >>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns >>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org >>> >> website has >> >>> resulted from its >>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." >>> >>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a >>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point >>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking >>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables. >>> >>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove >>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting >>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but >>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to >>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of >>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to >>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. >>> >>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government >>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". >>> >>> Amazon said: >>> >>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does >>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not >>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For >>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant >>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ >>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and >>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that >>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this >>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary >>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing >>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that >>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." >>> >>> It noted that: >>> >>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large >>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this >>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our >>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." >>> >>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by >>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from >>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and >>> Iraq. >>> >>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new >>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS >>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for >>> further donations to "keep us strong". >>> >>> Archives >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] >>> | >>> >>> >> Modify> 15-8 >> >>> 6e >>> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe >>> >>> >> Now> 3115 >> >>> -e >>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Dec 6 13:34:55 2010 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:34:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> Message-ID: <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the issues. In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What then? If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision, there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 6 14:08:41 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:08:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net> References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with what has been said and would have only three comments to make for now: - The last part of IT for Change´s statement is important. We should include something similar: "It is unlikely that an open consultation can reach any conclusions on such a range of complex issues. It will therefore be most appropriate to set up a CSTD Working Group to examine the various options for taking the process of enhanced cooperation forward, so that important global Internet related public policy issues can be properly addressed." - I agree that we try to point out some topics, such as the ones suggested, and be more concrete. But we should also make clear that EC is not only about what is *not* being addressed, but it is also (and maybe mostly) about what is being *insufficiently* addressed or coordinated. This insufficient coordination usually takes place either because organizations are working in their silos or because of plurilateral attempts of forum shifting. -The discussions about the topics that could be placed under EC should move forward together with a discussion about the mechanisms of EC, because both issues are intertwined. Mentioning principles (democratic and participatory mechanisms) may be enough for now, but sooner or later we will need to comment on how these principles can be translated into real mechanisms (existing or to be created). There is no pressing urgency, but let´s continue mulling over this. Best, Marília On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:48 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 06 December 2010 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > What is missing from Parminder's list: you need more than "globally democratic" and "fully participative," you also need agreed principles which _limit_ the authority of majoritarian or "participatory" institutions in ways that secure individual rights and freedoms. > > Democracy without that is nothing more than another form of tyranny - especially given the vastly heterogeneous nature of the global polity, in which various coalitions and factions can gang up on others. Therefore I agree with Miquel that we need something akin to an Internet charter, or at least to reaffirm existing rights under the ICCPR, and to specifically call attention to the fact that end users have rights that any form of global collaboration cannot transgress. > > > > Milton > > One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention on > the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, i agree > completely. New institutional developments should be framed by and within > codified principles. > > Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even > 'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed checks > and balances against majoritarianism. Why do you suspect otherwise. I do not > understand why centuries old concepts and ideas like democracy are suddenly > opened up to such unjustified criticism or critiques, as if something quite > novel is being discussed or proposed. > > As for global policy being very heterogeneous > > (1) if we are to unite economically, we will need to make considerable > progress politically as well.... the choice comes together > > (2) India has one seventh of the world's population, and is very very > diverse.. .with a lot of real dangers of majoritarianism, we deal with them > 'through democracy' not by putting 'riders to democracy' as you seem to be > doing.... I take democracy to a political system which ensures rights of all > people protecting diversities, and with all the needed checks against all > kinds of dominances, including numbers based majoritarianism, which seem to > be most bothering you :). Yes, indeed the sheer number of poor people in the > world is scary :). > > Parminder > > > > > > --MM > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance -request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations > > Dear all, > > It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder > to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples: > > - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in > trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime. > - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National > Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) > - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the > UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term > of services found. (e.g. Brazil example). > - Measurement of the impact of IG on development. > > I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global > internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing > mechanisms. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > Hi All > > A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also > > > since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet > related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms' > > > Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that > > "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet > > > governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, > but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what > institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important > Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, > inclusive and fully-participative manner." > > > Parminder > > > > > On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to > > > shut > > > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information. > > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage > > > issues, > > > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting > > > unilaterally to > > > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the > > > digital > > > age. > > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted > > > principles is > > > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current > enquiries. > > . > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: Lee W McKnight > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like > to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" > > > between > > > Lieberman and Bezos :) > > --c.a. > > On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy > > > grounds, > > > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from > > > Joe > > > Liebermann.... > > > > > > > From: Lee W McKnight > Reply-To: , Lee W McKnight > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re > > > their > > > cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating > > > terms of > > > service, below. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Sam > > > > > > > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST > To: Dave Farber IP > > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked? > > This may be of interest to the list. > > Samhttps://www.mensa.org/user/6020http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked- > > > off-net-d > > > ns > -everydns > > WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name > Everydns.net says attack against leaks site > > > endangered > > > other > customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web > Charles Arthur and Josh Hallidayguardian.co.uk , Friday 3 December 2010 > > > 07.54 GMT > > > WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org > > address. > > > Photograph: Joe > Raedle/Getty Images > The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against > WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after > Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. > > The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week > this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet. > > Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland > security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping > sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with > them. > > On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic > documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the > world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS > address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, > WikiLeaks.ch . > > Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the > "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious > problem." > > "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off > alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned. > > The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks > at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to > prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense > cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks. > > The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing > a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch , with the Swiss > suffix. > However, the > new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks > has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider. > > The Wikileaks.ch domain name, which only > > > surfaced on > > > Friday morning, > is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is > still being done by everydns. > > Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published > data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks > diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the > company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data > from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe > Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he > called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their > relationship with the website." > > Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, > wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been > applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name." > > Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec > Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has > been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under > pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities. > > A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­wikileaks.dd19.de ­ also > appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in > California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain > names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based > web services director, this morning launchedWikileeks.org.uk ­ a > "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address. > > In a statement on its website, the free > > > everydns.net > > service said that > the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers > ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks > site was interfering with the service being provided to other users. > That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had brokeneverydns.net 's terms of > service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST > Thursday). > > DNS services translate a website name, such asguardian.co.uk , into > machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so thathttp://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the > site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet > provided one via Twitter or other means. > > Everydns.net said that the attacks ­ which have > > > been > > > going on all > week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's > more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability > of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which > > > enables > > > access > to almost > 500,000 other websites". > > WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns > said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org > > website has > > > resulted from its > failure to use another hosted DNS service provider." > > The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a > determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point > of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking > of thousands of US diplomatic cables. > > US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove > any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting > of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but > last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to > pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of > the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to > withdraw support for WikiLeaks data. > > In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government > inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate". > > Amazon said: > > "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does > have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not > following them. There were several parts they were violating. For > example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary > volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing > could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that > they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy." > > It noted that: > > "When companies or people go about securing and storing large > quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this > data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our > terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere." > > But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by > the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from > WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and > Iraq. > > Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new > DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS > services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for > further donations to "keep us strong". > > Archives > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | > > > > Modify 15-8 > > > 6e > d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe > > > > Now 3115 > > > -e > 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 6 23:09:29 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:09:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Right: "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement." We're making some progress. Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right direction. The language from the ITforchange EC submission could get ball rolling. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:45 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 16:58:51 on Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Lee W McKnight writes >First, > >Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to >defend the ITU's honor : ) ... > Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work >reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users. I wasn't intending to knock the ITU, although it's a spectator sport for many. I try to "walk a mile in their shoes" before criticising anyone, and in this case have attended about 20 full days of ITU meetings and conferences in person, and the same again by remote participation. >Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder >manner. There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be. >Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global >democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course. See >there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go >from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability >is NOT the problem. That's a bit like saying it would be easy for everyone to get into the governance of air traffic control, because planes fly everywhere. But that's an illusion. >Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure >it never happens. > >So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it >is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty >reasonable draft. If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement. -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Dec 7 00:59:15 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:59:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked? In-Reply-To: References: <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <434802.84343.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 729 sites (updated 2010-12-06 22:32 GMT) http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html'   ________________________________ From: Paul Lehto To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pouzin (well) Sent: Sun, 5 December, 2010 21:32:28 Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked? I'm about to renew some domain names, and if the Terms of Service (to date, unknown to me in this particular), happen to contain the term apparently relied upon by everydns that being subject to a DDOS attack (a criminal act) is a violation by ME of their terms of service, I'm going to hold off on renewing and tell them why. I realize it's possible all other hosts and sellers of domain names might have the same language somewhere, especially with legal boilerplate language being such as it is and the rampant extent of copycat lawyers who try to give corporate or ISP clients the most overbroad and overreaching claimed TOS rights as the lawyer can possibly dream up. Still, I have serious doubts about the enforceability of contractual terms that find ME in violation of terms of service for criminal acts against me that are the fault of someone else.  Of course, the claimed TOS violation for not owning all rights in the material is a different argument.  The lawyer who argued that one was misguided, in my opinion, for the federal government in the USA claims no copyright. They would be better off arguing the catchall warranty of "no violation of state or federal law" in the material posted.  But then that falls into Assange's argument that censorship has been privatised and websites taken down for "illegality" without any due process much less a trial. Paul Lehto, J.D. PS  I think it is important, on the general level, to not drop one's critical analysis of documents just because they claim to have been "leaked" via Wikileaks or anywhere else.  While many are surely authentic, with such volumes as are present here, and with documents readily available electronically to relatively low level military people, the risk of capture is surely a known risk and therefore there could easily have been the foresight to have disinformation within that data stream and not just "information."  To the extent, IF ANY, that this is true, the wikileaks documents constitute some of the most effective possible propaganda because they are immediately accepted on their face as true documents, a glimpse into the "inner workings" of government, and thus the statements in their pass straight into the history books (eventually) without question.  If there were a few or a bunch of such plants, this would be a very clever way to write or rewrite history.  Do I believe this to be the case?  Not really, but the single document I saw on WORLD PERCEPTIONS of the USA as an exporter of terrorism failed to mention the USA government itself as being PERCEIVED anywhere around the world as such an exporter.  Surely a CIA analyst is not under political restrictions when speaking about perceptions in other countries and can't really be quite that dumb or uninformed, so there's a tiny seed in my mind of doubt about the authenticity of at least that one single document I saw.  But, at the end of the day, all I'm advocating is not belief or disbelief in authenticity, but just retaining one's usual circumspection and thoughtful analysis and not presuming everything is as it seems. That's the whole idea in the world of spooks, isn't it? That not all is exactly as it seems??  ;)  Have fun wrapping your mind around this if you've even read this!  :) On 12/5/10, Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US? > > - - - > > As we may observe, China and USA (among others) are countries where shutting > off web sites and revoking domain names result from  government decisions. > > This is a wake-up call for clients of US registries such as .com, .net, > .org, and about all TLD's feeding ICANN cash cow. Luckily open roots are in > the offing to provide safer harbors. > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Dec 7 01:23:02 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:23:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Need your input to CSTD Questionnaire on WSIS follow-up Message-ID: Dear list, Here follows is the CSTD Questionnaire on WSIS follow-up. The deadline for the submission of answers is Dec 14, one week from now. We have not found any volunteer so far to prepare the draft text. If someone can do that, that will be very much appreciated. But, even we do not have one specific person yet, please send your inputs answers as reply to this thread to start. Please be specific to the numbered questions. We also appreciate if any of your organization, say APC, IT for Change or any others could share the draft text with us here. That will work as a good reference. Thanks, izumi ----------------------------- From the CSTD website: http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5/OS_Letter/ CSTD five-year review of progress concerning WSIS outcomes: request for contributions The questions are here: 1. What do you consider to be the most important achievements of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) since 2005? 2a. In what areas do you think most progress has been made in implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level during the five years from 2005 to 2010? 2b. What action should be taken to build on this success during the next five years? 3a. In what areas do you think least progress has been made in implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level during these five years? 3b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the next five years? 4. Please make any specific comments that you wish to make on WSIS implementation and follow-up activity as a result of your experience, either concerning the outcomes of WSIS in general or in specific areas of WSIS implementation and follow-up. You may find it useful to refer to the list of chapter headings in the Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society in responding to this question. 5a. In what WSIS implementation and follow-up activities at an international or regional level has your organisation been involved? (Follow-up processes which were agreed at WSIS are described in the chapter of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which is headed “Implementation and Follow-up” (paragraphs 83-122). 5b. Which of these processes do you think have been most successful during the past five years and why? 5c. What action should be taken to build on this success during the next five years? 6a. Which WSIS implementation and follow-up processes do you think have been less successful during the past five years and why? 6b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the next five years? 7. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning the Information Society have emerged or become important since the Summit ended in 2005, which deserve more attention in the next five years? 8. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work for the implementation of WSIS outcomes during the next five years, up to the comprehensive review of WSIS in 2015? 9. How, if at all, do you think that WSIS follow-up processes need to change to take account of changing circumstances and priorities? 10. Please make any further comments below that you think would be useful to the review. ---------------------- e-mail sent-out from CSTD Secretariat: Dear colleagues, The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) is conducting a five year review of progress made in the implementation of, and follow-up to, the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The purpose of the review is to identify progress made, obstacles and constraints encountered, as well as actions and initiatives to overcome them. The review will also consider how changes in the ICT landscape may call for increased/reduced attention to certain areas. To gather inputs for the review, the Chair of the CSTD has initiated an open consultation with all stakeholders, including UN and other intergovernmental agencies, governments, ICT sector associations and agencies, private sector and civil society actors. The principal issues in this consultation are set out in a questionnaire, which can be found online at http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5 . This questionnaire invites views and contributions concerning: the experience of WSIS implementation since 2005, at an international and regional level; changes which have taken place in the ICT landscape since WSIS; and priorities for WSIS implementation and Information Society development over the next five years. It also includes space for other comments that contributors may wish to make. The questionnaire could be filled out directly online at the URL indicated above. Responses could also be emailed to Mr. Mongi Hamdi (wsis5 at unctad.org) The Chair has invited responses to this questionnaire to be submitted by 14 December 2010. Thank you. CSTD Secretariat -------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 04:47:48 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:47:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Right: > > "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance > of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing > everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement." > > We're making some progress. I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive. > > Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right direction. If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively) intergovernmental "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing, content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right direction. If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step. > > The language from the ITforchange EC submission could get ball rolling. down a very slippery slope! -- 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 hongxueipr at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 05:23:59 2010 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:23:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Has anyone on this list attended "IDN fast track process review" debriefing at ICANN Cartagena Meeting on December 6? Please refer to http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15415. Ms. Tina Dam and Mr. Patrick Jones from ICANN chaired the session. Tina presented on the following aspects of fast track process: - Transparency - Community Support - Meaningfulness - Determination of the IDN ccTLD manager - IDN Tables - Disputes - Confusingly similar string - Objection/re-evaluation rights Although there were less than 30 participants in the plenary room, the session brought up interesting information. At the end of the presentation, there were questions raised on the Internet referred to .бг (.bg) case. The staff restated that they were not supposed to comment on any specific case. I then asked a procedural question. Although the String evaluation done by DNS stability panel (according to their guidelines) is a technical decision, it is a decision made on behalf of ICANN and has (significant) policy implication. If such technical determination is not subject to reconsideration or independent review, wouldn't it be an accountability issue, as highlighted by ICANN at the opening ceremony? To my *rough* memory, both replied that fast track process should be sufficiently simply, without objection or re-evaluation. And, surprisingly both ICANN staff replied that anyone would be available to reconsideration or review. Although I was terribly jetlagged, I assume I heard their reply clearly. Since I had another meeting and had to leave the conference room immediately after the question , I did not know if this issue was discussed further. The audio record at the link is broken unfortunately. If there were anyone present, could you let me know if I heard the reply wrong? Regards Hong -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been > done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to > ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we > can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the > issues. > > In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from > the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation > criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation > stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the > lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that > refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties > may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What > then? > If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision, > there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those > concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks. > > Daniel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Dec 7 08:12:19 2010 From: Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int (HIBBARD Lee) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:12:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Open Council of Europe multi-stakeholder conference to examine alternative futures in international Internet-related public policy (18-19 April 2011, Strasbourg, France) Message-ID: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC07892C76@OBELIX.key.coe.int> For information: Open CoE multi-stakeholder conference to examine alternative futures in international Internet-related public policy (18-19 April 2011, Strasbourg, France) Internet's universality and openness is an essential condition for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information globally. Decisions relating to the management of the Internet are likely to have a bearing on fundamental rights and freedoms. The borderless nature of the Internet infrastructure and its decentralised management beg the question of how to address the challenges to its universality and openness through international cooperation. Following the IGF discussions in Vilnius, the Council of Europe body responsible for developing media and information society policy has decided to work on a set of Internet governance principles to be included in a political statement of the organisation. It is also examining ways of international cooperation to preserve the ongoing functioning of the Internet. What are the most viable options for international action? Decentralised and unpredictable development of standards by corporations and civil society, lobbies and bureaucrats or traditional treaty making? What architecture for participation and deliberation? Who are the stewards or facilitators of multi-stakeholder dialogue? What are the opportunities and the risks? How to ensure impact? How to balance efficacy and accountability? What outputs in terms of international policy? How can we construct globally applicable solutions? The Council of Europe will invite representatives of governments, the private sector and civil society to discuss these issues in an open conference. Invitations will be issued in due course. <> For more information please contact: Elvana Thaçi Media and Information Society Division Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe Tel. + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05 E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int Internet: www.coe.int/media -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FLYER CI Cartagena.doc Type: application/msword Size: 2533376 bytes Desc: FLYER CI Cartagena.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chad at apc.org Tue Dec 7 08:27:50 2010 From: chad at apc.org (Chad Lubelsky) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:27:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Need your input to CSTD Questionnaire on WSIS follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01A6F0C8-A353-49F2-B9FF-B5AD74F5FB6E@apc.org> > We also appreciate if any of your organization, say APC, IT for Change > or any others could share the draft text with us here. We (APC) are working on our statement and as soon as it's ready we will post to the list. Cheers, Chad > > That will work as a good reference. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > ----------------------------- > From the CSTD website: > > http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5/OS_Letter/ > > CSTD five-year review of progress concerning WSIS outcomes: request > for contributions > > The questions are here: > > 1. What do you consider to be the most important achievements of the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) since 2005? > > 2a. In what areas do you think most progress has been made in > implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level > during the five years from 2005 to 2010? > > 2b. What action should be taken to build on this success during the > next five years? > > 3a. In what areas do you think least progress has been made in > implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level > during these five years? > > 3b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the > next five years? > > 4. Please make any specific comments that you wish to make on WSIS > implementation and follow-up activity as a result of your experience, > either concerning the outcomes of WSIS in general or in specific areas > of WSIS implementation and follow-up. > You may find it useful to refer to the list of chapter headings in the > Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society > in responding to this question. > > 5a. In what WSIS implementation and follow-up activities at an > international or regional level has your organisation been involved? > (Follow-up processes which were agreed at WSIS are described in the > chapter of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which is > headed “Implementation and Follow-up” (paragraphs 83-122). > > 5b. Which of these processes do you think have been most successful > during the past five years and why? > > 5c. What action should be taken to build on this success during the > next five years? > > 6a. Which WSIS implementation and follow-up processes do you think > have been less successful during the past five years and why? > > 6b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the > next five years? > > 7. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning the > Information Society have emerged or become important since the Summit > ended in 2005, which deserve more attention in the next five years? > > 8. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work > for the implementation of WSIS outcomes during the next five years, up > to the comprehensive review of WSIS in 2015? > > 9. How, if at all, do you think that WSIS follow-up processes need to > change to take account of changing circumstances and priorities? > > 10. Please make any further comments below that you think would be > useful to the review. > > ---------------------- > > e-mail sent-out from CSTD Secretariat: > > Dear colleagues, > > The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) is > conducting a five year review of progress made in the implementation > of, and follow-up to, the outcome of the World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS). > > The purpose of the review is to identify progress made, obstacles and > constraints encountered, as well as actions and initiatives to > overcome them. The review will also consider how changes in the ICT > landscape may call for increased/reduced attention to certain areas. > > To gather inputs for the review, the Chair of the CSTD has initiated > an open consultation with all stakeholders, including UN and other > intergovernmental agencies, governments, ICT sector associations and > agencies, private sector and civil society actors. The principal > issues in this consultation are set out in a questionnaire, which can > be found online at http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5 . This > questionnaire invites views and contributions concerning: > > the experience of WSIS implementation since 2005, at an international > and regional level; > changes which have taken place in the ICT landscape since WSIS; and > priorities for WSIS implementation and Information Society > development over the next five years. > > It also includes space for other comments that contributors may wish to make. > > The questionnaire could be filled out directly online at the URL > indicated above. Responses could also be emailed to Mr. Mongi Hamdi > (wsis5 at unctad.org) > > The Chair has invited responses to this questionnaire to be submitted > by 14 December 2010. > > Thank you. > CSTD Secretariat > > -------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ---- Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator Association for Progressive Communications Montreal, Canada chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 --- APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tina.dam at icann.org Tue Dec 7 08:49:52 2010 From: tina.dam at icann.org (Tina Dam) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:49:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D35027840C@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Hong Xue, nice to see you yesterday. I did not notice you were jetlagged. We may be meaning the same thing, but just to be clear this is what we said: - The fast track process was built limited in nature and for those applications where there is no concerns or no disputes of any kind. I also said I believe this is an appropriate approach for the initial IDN TLD delegations. It does however not mean that things should be more liberal in the future, but it is always easier to expand a program than to narrow it after the fact. - Anyone at ICANN who are unhappy about a decision and not able to solve this with staff, can always go to the Ombudsman or seek reconsideration through the process for such. For details about these general processes, which are non-dependant on the fast track process, but part of ICANNs Accountability and Review Processes, please see http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html I am sorry that the audio is broken, but can also tell you that the issue was not discussed any further than that. Tina From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs? Has anyone on this list attended "IDN fast track process review" debriefing at ICANN Cartagena Meeting on December 6? Please refer to http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15415. Ms. Tina Dam and Mr. Patrick Jones from ICANN chaired the session. Tina presented on the following aspects of fast track process: - Transparency - Community Support - Meaningfulness - Determination of the IDN ccTLD manager - IDN Tables - Disputes - Confusingly similar string - Objection/re-evaluation rights Although there were less than 30 participants in the plenary room, the session brought up interesting information. At the end of the presentation, there were questions raised on the Internet referred to .бг (.bg) case. The staff restated that they were not supposed to comment on any specific case. I then asked a procedural question. Although the String evaluation done by DNS stability panel (according to their guidelines) is a technical decision, it is a decision made on behalf of ICANN and has (significant) policy implication. If such technical determination is not subject to reconsideration or independent review, wouldn't it be an accountability issue, as highlighted by ICANN at the opening ceremony? To my *rough* memory, both replied that fast track process should be sufficiently simply, without objection or re-evaluation. And, surprisingly both ICANN staff replied that anyone would be available to reconsideration or review. Although I was terribly jetlagged, I assume I heard their reply clearly. Since I had another meeting and had to leave the conference room immediately after the question , I did not know if this issue was discussed further. The audio record at the link is broken unfortunately. If there were anyone present, could you let me know if I heard the reply wrong? Regards Hong -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Daniel Kalchev > wrote: There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the issues. In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What then? If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision, there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 09:03:47 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:03:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> McTim, You are prejudging the conclusion of a process that has not been proposed, much less begun, and hence is very far from concluded. I appreciate your foresight, and I may be...presumptuous myself. But. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:47 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Right: > > "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance > of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing > everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement." > > We're making some progress. I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive. > > Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right direction. If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively) intergovernmental "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing, content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right direction. If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step. > > The language from the ITforchange EC submission could get ball rolling. down a very slippery slope! -- 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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Tue Dec 7 09:39:13 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:39:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] APC statement: A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information online Message-ID: <023801cb961c$870df280$9529d780$@net> Forwarded from APC Network. There is a statement about Wikileaks. Thought will be of interest to you. Best wishes and regards Shahzad --------------------------------- APC says, A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information online JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA TUESDAY DECEMBER 7 - The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is deeply concerned about recent attempts by governments to limit access to online content recently published by whistleblower website WikiLeaks. APC is also troubled by actions taken by private companies such as EveryDNS.net which disabled the domain name system services for WikiLeaks.org, Amazon which repealed web hosting services and Paypal which restricted access to WikiLeaks' account to prevent supporters from donating money. APC believes that the ability to share information and communicate freely using the internet is vital to the realisation of human rights and to efforts to use the internet to contribute more accountable and transparent governance at global and national levels. A site like WikiLeaks can also play a vital role in aiding the fight against corruption in governments and corporations. The APC Internet Rights Charter clearly states that: *The internet must be protected from all attempts to silence critical voices and to censor social and political content or debate. *Organisations, communities and individuals should be free to use the internet to organise and engage in protest. *All information, including scientific and social research, that is produced with the support of public funds should be freely available to all. As the world's longest-running online progressive network founded in 1990, APC has been troubled by trends over the last decade that show that such rights are increasingly violated and believes that the recent attempts to censor WikiLeaks provide additional reasons for concern. The US government has been unable to provide evidence that lives have been put at risk by WikiLeaks disclosures. APC appeals to all governments and the internet community to explicitly reject any form of online content control that limits freedom of expression and information, particularly information that contributes to more transparent governance, and that empowers citizens to hold their governments accountable. We urge them to assure the uninterrupted online presence of the WikiLeaks website. A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information on the internet. END ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Dec 7 09:54:55 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:54:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF, Dec 17, now fixed Message-ID: Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received. Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes. The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon? Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from IGF practice. The secretariat cannot change the rules of the procedure, they say. izumi ------------------------------ The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years. Please see the news item on the CSTD website: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839 The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front page under "just published". Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December. All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat: http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc ------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 09:06:42 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:06:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim writes >On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Right: >> >> "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance >> of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing >> everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement." >> >> We're making some progress. > >I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive. So you want multistakeholder, without but governments? >> Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting >>as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in >>the right direction. > >If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively) >intergovernmental "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing, >content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation >of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right >direction. > >If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the >networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step. And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 7 10:12:47 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:42:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CFE4EEF.7080502@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 07:36 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim writes >> If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the >> networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step. > > And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about > public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters. > Yes, indeed a very important discussion. In fact, in our submission for EC consultations we propose that technical policy issues and public policy issues be discussed as two distinct tracks... Even on this list, the number of times when one is discussing the context of Internet related public policies and get responses that just pertain to the context of technical operational issues/ policies is so high that it will be good to mark emails/ discussions as belonging to one kind or the other... If we can do something to that effect, we will be doing so much more meaningful discussions. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 10:35:23 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:35:23 +0500 Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF, Dec 17, now fixed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially passed and resolved? --- Fouad? On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received. > Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes. > The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon? > > Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities > with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new > entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from > IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the > procedure, they say. > > izumi > > ------------------------------ > The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for > development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years. > Please see the news item on the CSTD website: > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839 > > The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front > page under "just published". > > Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December. > > All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were > accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to > fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat: > http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 7 11:03:31 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:03:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net> References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention on the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, i agree completely. New institutional developments should be framed by and within codified principles. But we need to make it clear that the principles involve _limitations_ on power, and rights for end users. The term “principles” is a bit too vague by itself. Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even 'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed checks and balances against majoritarianism. I guess this is where we disagree. In Western academic and political discourse, at least, the term “democracy” does not mean the same thing as “liberal democracy” Why do you suspect otherwise. I do not understand why centuries old concepts and ideas like democracy are suddenly opened up to such unjustified criticism or critiques, as if something quite novel is being discussed or proposed. Well, democracy means “rule by the people” and thus raises the issue of what “public” or “people” one is talking about. Democracy has for the past 3-4 centuries meant “nations” or more territorially delimited publics. Global democracy is indeed something extremely novel. You are probably already familiar with this but for some good discussions of what it means, see this web site: http://www.buildingglobaldemocracy.org/content/cgd-case-studies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 11:06:16 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:06:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim writes >> >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> Right: >>> >>> "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance >>> of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing >>> everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement." >>> >>> We're making some progress. >> >> I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive. > > So you want multistakeholder, without but governments? on the contrary, at the most recent AfriNIC meeting a gave a presentation about how the 30/30/30/10 mix (with the ITC making up the 10%) was a great recipe for MS policy making. I just don't want gov'ts to overwhelm the others as they would do in any Framework Convention. > >>> Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a >>> next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right >>> direction. >> >> If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively) >> intergovernmental  "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing, >> content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation >> of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right >> direction. >> >> If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the >> networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step. > > And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about public > policy (political) issues than operational policy matters. Understood, but when one talks about "Global Internet traffic flows" as public policy, then the two are inseparable (conflated more likely). -- 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 Dec 7 11:14:29 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:14:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <4CFE4EEF.7080502@itforchange.net> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CFE4EEF.7080502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 December 2010 07:36 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message , > at 12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim writes > > If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the > networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step. > > And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about public > policy (political) issues than operational policy matters. > > > Yes, indeed a very important discussion. In fact, in our submission for EC > consultations we propose that technical policy issues and public policy > issues be discussed as two distinct tracks but you muddle them. I run a network. Is this FCor GIC or whatever Uber Council/Star Chamber that you want to create going to tell me how I can do traffic engineering? Who I must/can peer with? Is it legit to drop packets at the edge of my network if i am sure they are SPAM/DDOS/bogons/whatever? ... Even on this list, the number > of times when one is discussing the context of Internet related public > policies and get responses that just pertain to the context of technical > operational issues/ policies is so high that it will be good to mark emails/ > discussions as belonging to one kind or the other... If we can do something > to that effect, we will be doing so much more meaningful discussions. See above, they are separate in your theory, but not in my practice. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 7 13:14:07 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> The key characteristic of internet governance is that one cannot separate the two. > -----Original Message----- > And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about > public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Dec 7 15:15:18 2010 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:15:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <004401cb94ca$ac151ac0$9d00a8c0@RJRTX690P>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CFE95D6.8020505@gmail.com> And more: 7 December 2010 Last updated at 14:52 GMT Wikileaks' Visa payments suspended Visa Europe has begun suspending payments to whistle-blowing website Wikileaks ahead of carrying out an investigation into the organisation. It follows a similar move by rival payments processor Mastercard on Tuesday. Visa's announcement comes after Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange was arrested by police in London. Mr Assange, whose website has published secret documents, is wanted in Sweden on sexual assault allegations. Wikileaks relies on online donations to fund its operations, which will now not be possible using both Visa and Mastercard debit and credit cards. A spokeswoman for Visa Europe said its investigation would determine the nature of Wikileaks' business, and "whether it contravenes Visa operating rules". She added that Visa Europe could not suspend payments to Wikileaks immediately, and that the process took a certain amount of time. Mastercard said in its statement that it was "in the process of working to suspend the acceptance of Mastercard cards on Wikileaks until the situation is resolved". Online payment firm PayPal and internet giant Amazon have also cut their links with Wikileaks in recent days. On 2010/12/06 02:47 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > But wait there's more... > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:43 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "RJR rjriley.com"> > Date: December 5, 2010 5:20:49 PM EST > To: dave at farber.net > Subject: WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder > > > > > Interesting claims, hard to tell what the motive may be. > > Ronald J Riley > > === > > WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder > Selling secrets 'lucrative,' but 'usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit' > ________________________________ > Posted: December 05, 2010 > 2:40 pm Eastern > > © 2010 WorldNetDaily > > > > One of the early members and co-founders of the tight-knit, secretive WikiLeaks operation charged today that the website and its co-founder, Julian Assange, sold intelligence information the site had obtained. > > John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business. > > Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents. > > More....http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345 > > > > Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 15:38:03 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:38:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 13:14:07 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Milton L Mueller writes >> And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about >> public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters. >The key characteristic of internet governance is that one cannot >separate the two. I'd start from a position that Public Policy is what's expressed in laws and treaties, whereas operational policy is founded in standards documents and contracts (and including Acceptable-Use Policies and Best Practices). The overlaps starts when someone says "hey - let's have a law or treaty that says this technical standard or contract term is compulsory". -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Dec 7 16:40:20 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:40:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 7 16:46:11 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:46:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> First, let's confirm that rumor. > -----Original Message----- > > Hi everybody > > there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to > establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only > working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the > group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental > members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental > representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. > > We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 7 16:52:50 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:52:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > I'd start from a position that Public Policy is what's expressed in laws > and treaties, whereas operational policy is founded in standards > documents and contracts (and including Acceptable-Use Policies and Best > Practices). The overlaps starts when someone says "hey - let's have a > law or treaty that says this technical standard or contract term is > compulsory". > -- The overlap starts well before that. What you are saying, in effect, is that if the government wants to impose public policy concerns on the industry it must alter the technical standards, or operations, or private contractual terms among ISPs, hosting companies, etc. Conversely, if it wants to allow industry players to set standards, perform operations or negotiate contracts on their own, it will have little influence on public policy. That tells me the two are inseparable. More fundamentally (and this is a point I explore at length in Networks and States), when you talk about "public policy" what "public" are you talking about? On the global internet, there are 200+ national publics, many more subnational publics, and several transnational or regional publics involved. If so, what gives a "national" public in the form of one government the right to legislate in ways that affect 20 or 30 other publics over which they have no legitimate authority? Communications media create their own publics. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 17:49:11 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:49:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> The decision was made in a CSTD bureau meeting yesterday at a late hour when only a limited number of governments where in the room. Only a very small group of governments, including Portugal and Switzerland, defended the multistakeholder model but the majority of the CSTD members in the room argued that it would be better for the process if the governments can discuss improvement - based on the input of the various stakeholders - among themselves. We have to wait until the official announcement. w ________________________________ Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Gesendet: Di 07.12.2010 22:46 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: IGF Improvement First, let's confirm that rumor. > -----Original Message----- > > Hi everybody > > there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to > establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only > working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the > group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental > members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental > representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. > > We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Dec 7 18:08:46 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:08:46 -0500 Subject: RES: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B1=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <020b01cb9663$b9e40bd0$2dac2370$@uol.com.br> If confuse with b will be brazil ( .br) Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Hong Xue Enviada em: terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2010 05:24 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev Assunto: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs? Has anyone on this list attended "IDN fast track process review" debriefing at ICANN Cartagena Meeting on December 6? Please refer to http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15415. Ms. Tina Dam and Mr. Patrick Jones from ICANN chaired the session. Tina presented on the following aspects of fast track process: - Transparency - Community Support - Meaningfulness - Determination of the IDN ccTLD manager - IDN Tables - Disputes - Confusingly similar string - Objection/re-evaluation rights Although there were less than 30 participants in the plenary room, the session brought up interesting information. At the end of the presentation, there were questions raised on the Internet referred to .бг (.bg) case. The staff restated that they were not supposed to comment on any specific case. I then asked a procedural question. Although the String evaluation done by DNS stability panel (according to their guidelines) is a technical decision, it is a decision made on behalf of ICANN and has (significant) policy implication. If such technical determination is not subject to reconsideration or independent review, wouldn't it be an accountability issue, as highlighted by ICANN at the opening ceremony? To my *rough* memory, both replied that fast track process should be sufficiently simply, without objection or re-evaluation. And, surprisingly both ICANN staff replied that anyone would be available to reconsideration or review. Although I was terribly jetlagged, I assume I heard their reply clearly. Since I had another meeting and had to leave the conference room immediately after the question , I did not know if this issue was discussed further. The audio record at the link is broken unfortunately. If there were anyone present, could you let me know if I heard the reply wrong? Regards Hong -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the issues. In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What then? If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision, there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 20:19:09 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:19:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC Message-ID: Source: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706 ISOC Monthly Newsletter The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the Internet of a website made infamous through international press coverage and political intrigue. The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that those principles are currently at risk. Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org website is the subject of concern to a variety of individuals and nations, we nevertheless believe it must be subject to the same laws and policies of availability as all Internet sites. Free expression should not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet. Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design principle. The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all access to Wikileaks material. This further underscores that the removal of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation. Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the air. (end) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Dec 7 21:24:31 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:24:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, thank you for sharing this critical information (in my view). Though not confirmed, I think we should not "wait" until it is confirmed. I mean wait for official announcement, per se. Let's think ahead. IF this is just a rumor but WG are selected on MSH base, that's fine. To me it is quite clear that there is a move to "shrink" the mutli-stakeholder framework at both IGF and Enhanced cooperation. Whether that move is adopted or not is another question, but many governments are trying to move the negotiation place within their own turf while some other governments and most other entities, civil society, private sector, technical community are trying to keep the MSH if not to advance. I think we need to come up with good strategy and work plan to address this, and also "outreach" with like-minded people who are not yet on board for the preparation process of IGF2 and WSIS2015. For that Dec 14 EC consultation and Dec 17 IGF WG meeting are quite important to show that civil society is very much concerned about the potential degrading of MSH, ask them to remain committed to it, and further advance that for the next round. We may, just like we did with ICC and ISOC, prepare and publish joint letter of protest, with possible outreach to other organizations as well. Just my idea, izumi 2010/12/8 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > > Hi everybody > > there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. > > We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 7 22:02:34 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:02:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> On 08/12/2010, at 10:24 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I think we need to come up with good strategy and work plan to address > this, and also "outreach" with like-minded people who are not yet on > board for the preparation process of IGF2 and WSIS2015. I am put in mind of the way that the OpenOffice.org community recently broke away from Oracle (formerly Sun), which had become unfriendly to the open source community, to form the Document Foundation, and renamed its product LibreOffice. Quoting from its Web site: > The Document Foundation will continue to be focused on developing, supporting, and promoting the same software, and it's very much business as usual. We are simply moving to a new and more appropriate organisational model... If Internet governance processes in the UN system continue to become more intergovernmental, it may force members of the IGF, including civil society society, private sector and governments supportive of multi-stakeholder democratic principles, to break away and operate independently... -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From katitza at eff.org Tue Dec 7 22:31:52 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:31:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] EFF: Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet Censorship Message-ID: <4CFEFC28.1030007@eff.org> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/join-eff-in-standing-up-against-internet-censorship December 7th, 2010 Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet Censorship /EFF: Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet Censorship Call To Action by Shari Steele / Over the past few weeks, we here at EFF have watched as whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has fueled an emotionally charged debate about the secrecy of government information and the people's right to know. We have welcomed this debate, and the fact that there have been myriad views is the embodiment of the freedom of expression upon which this country was founded. However, we've been greatly troubled by a recent shift in focus. The debate about the wisdom of releasing secret government documents has turned into a massive attack on the right of intermediaries to publish truthful information. Suddenly, WikiLeaks has become the Internet's scapegoat, with a Who's Who of American and foreign companies choosing to shun the site. Let's be clear --- in the United States, at least, WikiLeaks has a fundamental right to publish truthful political information. And equally important, Internet users have a fundamental right to read that information and voice their opinions about it. We live in a society that values freedom of expression and shuns censorship. Unfortunately, those values are only as strong as the will to support them --- a will that seems to be dwindling now in an alarming way. On Friday, we wrote about Amazon's disappointing decision to yank hosting services from WikiLeaks after a phone call from a senator's office. Since then, a cascade of companies and organizations has backed away from WikiLeaks. A public figure called for the assassination of Assange. PayPal , MasterCard , and Visa axed WikiLeaks' accounts. EveryDNS.net pulled Wikileaks' DNS services. Unknown sources continue to cripple WikiLeaks with repeated denial of service attacks . Even the Library of Congress, normally a bastion of public access to information, is blocking WikiLeaks. There has been a tremendous backlash against WikiLeaks from governments around the world. In the United States, lawmakers have rashly proposed a law that threatens legitimate news reporting well beyond WikiLeaks. We expect to see similar efforts in other countries. Like it or not, WikiLeaks has become the emblem for one of the most important battles for our rights that is likely to come along in our lifetimes. We cannot sit this one out. Join EFF in standing up against Internet censorship . Download our No Censorship button to display on your websites and social networking profiles. Show the world that you are committed to free expression and denounce censorship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 8 00:26:36 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:26:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about the CSTD working group is correct. The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and Internet community is simply to not participate. To immediately write a joint letter stating we will not participate. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Dec 8 00:34:25 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:34:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy and Adam, and all. It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true. But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting the process really the best option now? Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to which in any case if they exclude CS members we cannot participate. Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC? To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby", attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc, with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach. An early withdrawal may make just our presence very low in the main stage, unless we have a very strong and visible alternative forum. I also don't think forming joint body between CS and Private Sector only becomes good alternative. Unless some good number of governments support and/or participate, CS and PS joint is not quite "multi-stakeholoder" organ in my vew. I do not mean we should accept the decision - not at all. And I am open to different views. izumi 2010/12/8 Adam Peake : > Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about the > CSTD working group is correct. > > The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and > Internet community is simply to not participate.  To immediately write a > joint letter stating we will not participate. > > Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Dec 8 00:40:18 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:40:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF, Dec 17, now fixed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, I don't know. The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA, and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution is THE FINAL. Anyone familiar with UN procedures? izumi 2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa : > So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially > passed and resolved? > > --- Fouad? > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received. >> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes. >> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon? >> >> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities >> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new >> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from >> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the >> procedure, they say. >> >> izumi >> >> ------------------------------ >> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for >> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years. >> Please see the news item on the CSTD website: >> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839 >> >> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front >> page under "just published". >> >> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December. >> >> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were >> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to >> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat: >> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc >> >> ------------------------------ >> ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Dec 8 00:42:56 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:42:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF, Dec 17, now fixed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry - the website says the following: General Assembly adopt resolution on "Information and communications technologies for development" 24 Nov 10 - The Second Committee of the General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution on "Information and communications technologies for development" on 24 November 2010 in New York. The resolution reaffirms the importance of ICT for development, and makes a number of recommendations with respect to the implementation of, and follow-up to, the World Summit on the Information Society(WSIS), including internet governance. ---- They say "General Assembly adopt resolution" NOT "adpoted" in the header. So this could be read as "GA to adopt resolution passed by 2nd commission" in the near future. Very confusing. izumi 2010/12/8 Izumi AIZU : > Well, I don't know. > > The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA, > and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if > they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution > is THE FINAL. > > Anyone familiar with UN procedures? > > izumi > > > > 2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa : >> So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially >> passed and resolved? >> >> --- Fouad? >> >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received. >>> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes. >>> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon? >>> >>> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities >>> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new >>> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from >>> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the >>> procedure, they say. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for >>> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years. >>> Please see the news item on the CSTD website: >>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839 >>> >>> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front >>> page under "just published". >>> >>> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December. >>> >>> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were >>> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to >>> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat: >>> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> ____________________ > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 04:51:07 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:51:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello, You have all your reading of "democracy" and I'll grant you. But in African realities, "democracy" is still an event for "galas" and the rhetoric of African political zombies. So I can not pretend that Africa's population actually participates, according to the sacred principles of universal democracy, the management of pubic thing. There are certainly exceptions but it's very very thin. Baudouin 2010/12/7 Milton L Mueller > > > > > > One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention on > the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, i agree > completely. New institutional developments should be framed by and within > codified principles. > > > > But we need to make it clear that the principles involve _*limitations*_ > on power, and rights for end users. The term “principles” is a bit too vague > by itself. > > > > Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even > 'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed checks > and balances against majoritarianism. > > > > I guess this is where we disagree. In Western academic and political > discourse, at least, the term “democracy” does not mean the same thing as > “liberal democracy” > > > > Why do you suspect otherwise. I do not understand why centuries old > concepts and ideas like democracy are suddenly opened up to such unjustified > criticism or critiques, as if something quite novel is being discussed or > proposed. > > Well, democracy means “rule by the people” and thus raises the issue of > what “public” or “people” one is talking about. Democracy has for the past > 3-4 centuries meant “nations” or more territorially delimited publics. > Global democracy is indeed something extremely novel. > > > > You are probably already familiar with this but for some good discussions > of what it means, see this web site: > http://www.buildingglobaldemocracy.org/content/cgd-case-studies > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 07:08:23 2010 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:08:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF, Dec 17, now fixed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, As long as I know, the plenary has to adopt it. As informal negotiations have finished within the 2nd Committee, the GA should adopt it without problems. Best, Miguel On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Well, I don't know. > > The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA, > and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if > they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution > is THE FINAL. > > Anyone familiar with UN procedures? > > izumi > > > > 2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa : >> So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially >> passed and resolved? >> >> --- Fouad? >> >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received. >>> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes. >>> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon? >>> >>> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities >>> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new >>> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from >>> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the >>> procedure, they say. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for >>> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years. >>> Please see the news item on the CSTD website: >>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839 >>> >>> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front >>> page under "just published". >>> >>> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December. >>> >>> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were >>> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to >>> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat: >>> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> ____________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Dec 8 07:24:32 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:24:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF, Dec 17, now fixed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Normally, all committee resolutions are finally adopted by plenary of GA. Kind regards Wolfgang Benedek Am 08.12.10 06:40 schrieb "Izumi AIZU" unter : > Well, I don't know. > > The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA, > and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if > they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution > is THE FINAL. > > Anyone familiar with UN procedures? > > izumi > > > > 2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa : >> So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially >> passed and resolved? >> >> --- Fouad? >> >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received. >>> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes. >>> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon? >>> >>> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS >>> entities >>> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new >>> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from >>> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the >>> procedure, they say. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for >>> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years. >>> Please see the news item on the CSTD website: >>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839 >>> >>> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front >>> page under "just published". >>> >>> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December. >>> >>> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were >>> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to >>> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat: >>> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> ____________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Wed Dec 8 07:58:58 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:58:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Jeremy and Adam, and all. > > It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true. If in fact true, I hope it slows down our headong, pell mell rush to ask governments to take over so many IG issues. > > But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based > on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting > the process really the best option now? > > Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to  which in any case > if they exclude CS members we cannot participate. > Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC? That's where we protest IMO. > > To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps > many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby", > attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc, > with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach. I just don't see why we go, tin cup in hand like beggars asking to be part of their process, when we don't engage in actual IG processes (as a Caucus) that are already open to our participation. -- 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 Dec 8 09:42:07 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:42:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4CFF993F.8020701@cafonso.ca> Surprise! :) It would actually be a surprise if it happened otherwise, given the obvious signals we have been receiving since Sharm el Sheik from Mr Sha Zukang/UNDESA. --c.a. On 12/07/2010 07:40 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Hi everybody > > there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. > > We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 10:05:20 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:05:20 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: It is time to act fast and send a strong document before they issue a formal note, arguing they should rethink their position. If it is formalized, then we need to decide what to do - ask for observation status, boycott, etc. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Jeremy and Adam, and all. > > It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true. > > But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based > on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting > the process really the best option now? > > Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to which in any case > if they exclude CS members we cannot participate. > Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC? > > To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps > many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby", > attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc, > with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach. > > An early withdrawal may make just our presence very low in the main stage, > unless we have a very strong and visible alternative forum. > > I also don't think forming joint body between CS and Private Sector > only becomes good alternative. Unless some good number of governments > support and/or participate, CS and PS joint is not quite > "multi-stakeholoder" > organ in my vew. > > I do not mean we should accept the decision - not at all. > And I am open to different views. > > izumi > > > 2010/12/8 Adam Peake : > > Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about > the > > CSTD working group is correct. > > > > The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and > > Internet community is simply to not participate. To immediately write a > > joint letter stating we will not participate. > > > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 8 10:11:21 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:11:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 14:26:36 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Adam Peake writes >Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about >the CSTD working group is correct. > >The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and >Internet community is simply to not participate. Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the CSTD session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD model of [in the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and WSIS accredited entities. Which excludes a wider range of stakeholders, but the WSIS-accredited ones are supposed to past their honeymoon period now, and CSTD never was open to everyone. But if the WG doesn't even allow those other entities as observers, that's a step backwards. I do also wonder if there has been so much fighting for seats on the non-government part of the originally proposed WG that they've decided that rather than disappoint some, they'll disappoint all. -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 10:20:10 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:20:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: >From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with a small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the petit comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont agree, are they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action? Best, Marilia On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , at 14:26:36 on Wed, > 8 Dec 2010, Adam Peake writes > > Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about >> the CSTD working group is correct. >> >> The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and >> Internet community is simply to not participate. >> > > Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the > CSTD session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD > model of [in the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and > WSIS accredited entities. Which excludes a wider range of stakeholders, but > the WSIS-accredited ones are supposed to past their honeymoon period now, > and CSTD never was open to everyone. > > But if the WG doesn't even allow those other entities as observers, that's > a step backwards. > > I do also wonder if there has been so much fighting for seats on the > non-government part of the originally proposed WG that they've decided that > rather than disappoint some, they'll disappoint all. > -- > 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Dec 8 10:26:52 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:26:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC statement: A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information online In-Reply-To: <023801cb961c$870df280$9529d780$@net> References: <023801cb961c$870df280$9529d780$@net> Message-ID: Hi, A very fine statement. Thanks for sharing it. a. On 7 Dec 2010, at 09:39, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Forwarded from APC Network. There is a statement about Wikileaks. Thought > will be of interest to you. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > --------------------------------- > > APC says, A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information online > > JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA TUESDAY DECEMBER 7 - The Association for > Progressive Communications (APC) is deeply concerned about recent > attempts by governments to limit access to online content recently > published by whistleblower website WikiLeaks. > > APC is also troubled by actions taken by private companies such as > EveryDNS.net which disabled the domain name system services for > WikiLeaks.org, Amazon which repealed web hosting services and Paypal > which restricted access to WikiLeaks' account to prevent supporters from > donating money. > > APC believes that the ability to share information and communicate > freely using the internet is vital to the realisation of human rights > and to efforts to use the internet to contribute more accountable and > transparent governance at global and national levels. A site like > WikiLeaks can also play a vital role in aiding the fight against > corruption in governments and corporations. > > The APC Internet Rights Charter clearly states that: > > *The internet must be protected from all attempts to silence critical > voices and to censor social and political content or debate. > > *Organisations, communities and individuals should be free to use the > internet to organise and engage in protest. > > *All information, including scientific and social research, that is > produced with the support of public funds should be freely available to all. > > As the world's longest-running online progressive network founded in > 1990, APC has been troubled by trends over the last decade that show > that such rights are increasingly violated and believes that the recent > attempts to censor WikiLeaks provide additional reasons for concern. > > The US government has been unable to provide evidence that lives have > been put at risk by WikiLeaks disclosures. > > APC appeals to all governments and the internet community to explicitly > reject any form of online content control that limits freedom of > expression and information, particularly information that contributes to > more transparent governance, and that empowers citizens to hold their > governments accountable. We urge them to assure the uninterrupted online > presence of the WikiLeaks website. > > A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information on the internet. > > END > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 10:38:58 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:38:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I just got the information that Portugal is not in the bureau of CSTD. The meeting that discused this issue was not a meeting of the bureau. Brazil is in the bureau but was not in this meeting... Who were the meeting participants? So far we have Portugal and Switzerland. Was this an European meeting? Can someone help to clarify? Marilia On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with a > small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact > representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the petit > comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont agree, are > they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action? > > Best, > > Marilia > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message , at 14:26:36 on Wed, >> 8 Dec 2010, Adam Peake writes >> >> Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about >>> the CSTD working group is correct. >>> >>> The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and >>> Internet community is simply to not participate. >>> >> >> Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the >> CSTD session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD >> model of [in the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and >> WSIS accredited entities. Which excludes a wider range of stakeholders, but >> the WSIS-accredited ones are supposed to past their honeymoon period now, >> and CSTD never was open to everyone. >> >> But if the WG doesn't even allow those other entities as observers, that's >> a step backwards. >> >> I do also wonder if there has been so much fighting for seats on the >> non-government part of the originally proposed WG that they've decided that >> rather than disappoint some, they'll disappoint all. >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 8 10:56:04 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:56:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 16:52:50 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Milton L Mueller writes > >> -----Original Message----- >> I'd start from a position that Public Policy is what's expressed in laws >> and treaties, whereas operational policy is founded in standards >> documents and contracts (and including Acceptable-Use Policies and Best >> Practices). The overlaps starts when someone says "hey - let's have a >> law or treaty that says this technical standard or contract term is >> compulsory". > >The overlap starts well before that. > >What you are saying, in effect, is that if the government wants to >impose public policy concerns on the industry it must alter the >technical standards, or operations, or private contractual terms among >ISPs, hosting companies, etc. I don't think there's a need to alter technical standards, but sometimes it's necessary to encourage people to use them. While interoperability is a strong driver for standards of content, many countries impose electrical standards upon modems (be they dialup, 3G or ADSL). In terms of operations, some have had government imposed rules about quality-of-service, and we are nudging towards a universal service obligation in some places. If they don't do it already, ISPs can also find they are required to demonstrate their billing systems are correct, that they have an easily accessible dispute resolution scheme, and that they can provide bills suitable for the partially sighted. As for contracts between ISPs and hosting companies, there is sometimes competition law which forces an incumbent [telco] to provide wholesale facilities to independents at a fair price. >Conversely, if it wants to allow industry players to set standards, >perform operations or negotiate contracts on their own, it will have >little influence on public policy. That tells me the two are >inseparable. Many governments prefer the industry to self-regulate, and only step in where there's an overlap between online and offline life. For example, a ban on tobacco advertising, or rules about "false advertising", being enforced online as well as in newspapers and on TV. >More fundamentally (and this is a point I explore at length in Networks >and States), when you talk about "public policy" what "public" are you >talking about? On the global internet, there are 200+ national publics, >many more subnational publics, and several transnational or regional >publics involved. If so, what gives a "national" public in the form of >one government the right to legislate in ways that affect 20 or 30 >other publics over which they have no legitimate authority? > >Communications media create their own publics. I have some experience of "Public Relations" and I'm aware that the "public" isn't just the "man in the street". As you rightly say, there are many public constituencies. There's commonly tension between them - what right has a government to tell an offshore gambling site it can't offer its services to their citizens, who are clearly split in their own views about whether gambling is a bad thing or not. Consistency is improved when, for example, the same rules are negotiated to apply to "all of the Stares of America" or "all countries in the European Union". But you are correct that deciding where between "if it's illegal anywhere it should be banned everywhere" and "if it's legal somewhere it should be legal everywhere" is the right place for people to pitch their tent is quite a challenge. -- 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 Dec 8 11:00:31 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:00:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 13:20:10 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel writes >From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with >a small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact >representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the >petit comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont >agree, are they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action If you want to talk to Governments (which I encourage) you should head for the corridor outside the GAC room in Cartagena, as soon as possible! There's also the session in New York on the 14th. -- 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 Dec 8 11:04:18 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:04:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 13:38:58 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel writes >I just got the information that Portugal is not in the bureau of CSTD. >The meeting that discused this issue was not a meeting of the bureau. >Brazil is in the bureau but was not in this meeting... >Who were the meeting participants? So far we have Portugal and >Switzerland. Was this an European meeting? Can someone help to clarify Apart from the ICANN meeting, there was also a telecoms-related session of the OECD in Paris on Monday and Tuesday. While absolutely not OECD business, maybe this was discussed in the corridors? -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 11:17:08 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:17:08 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I am unfortunately not in Cartagena, but making all contacts I can by e-mail. But I know some IGC members are in Cartagena. It is urgent for them to gather as much information as possible as talk to as many government CS friendly representatives as they can. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message >, > at 13:20:10 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel > writes > > From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with a >> small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact >> representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the petit >> comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont agree, are >> they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action >> > > If you want to talk to Governments (which I encourage) you should head for > the corridor outside the GAC room in Cartagena, as soon as possible! > > There's also the session in New York on the 14th. > > -- > 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 11:21:45 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:21:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] Richard Stallman: Open Letter on Sharing Licence in Brazil In-Reply-To: <5E0A25F9-E74D-41C8-BA09-ED7304A37C03@rz.hu-berlin.de> References: <5E0A25F9-E74D-41C8-BA09-ED7304A37C03@rz.hu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Richard Stallman today published an Open Letter to Brazil’s President Elect Dilma Rousseff and the Citizens of Brazil. He congratulates Brazil on its readiness to introduce the freedom to file-share into copyright law. He proposes improvements to ensure that the levy goes to authors and artists rather than to companies and to avoid favoring superstars. He also suggests a mechanism for incentivizing foreign artists to work for the adoption of the Sharing Licence in their own country. in English: http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html in Portuguese (translated by Pablo Hess, with support by Alexandre Oliva): http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.pt.html Also see the campaign website for the Sharing Licence and sign the petition to ensure that the „momentous improvement” of the freedom to share in copyright law will actually happen: http://www.compartilhamentolegal.org Dear President Elect Rousseff and the Citizens of Brazil In Brazil's debate over copyright law, a momentous improvement has been suggested: freedom to share published works, in exchange for a levy collected from Internet users over time. To recognize the usefulness to society of Internet file sharing among the citizens will be a great advance, but that plan raises a second question: how to use the funds collected? If used properly, they provide the chance for a second great advance, in support for the arts. Publishers typically propose to use the money to "compensate" the "rights holders" -- two bad ideas together. "Rights holders" is a disguised way of directing the money mainly to publishers rather than artists. As for "compensate", that concept is inappropriate, because it means to pay someone for doing a job, or to make up for taking something away from him. Neither of those descriptions applies to the practice of file sharing, since listeners and viewers have not hired publishers or artists to do a job, and sharing more copies does not take anything from them. (When they claim to be harmed, it is by comparison with their dreams.) Publishers use the term "compensate" to pressure others to view the issue their way. There is no need to "compensate" anyone for citizens' file sharing, but supporting artists is useful for the arts and for society. If Brazil adopts a sharing license fee system, it should design the system for distribution of the money so as to support the arts efficiently. With this system in place, artists will benefit when people share their work and will encourage sharing. What is the efficient way to support the arts with these funds? First of all, if the goal is to support artists, don't give the funds to publishing companies instead. Supporting the publishers does little to support artists. For instance, record companies pay musicians little or nothing of the money that comes in from sale of records: the musicians' record contracts are cunningly arranged so that musicians do not receive "their" share of record sales until a record sells a tremendous number of copies. If file sharing levy funds are distributed to record companies, they would not reach the musicians. Book contracts are not quite as outrageous, but even authors of best-sellers may get little. What society needs is to support these artists and authors better. I propose therefore to distribute the funds solely to the creative participants, and ensure in the law that publishers cannot claim it back from them or deduct it from money otherwise owed them. The levy would be collected initially by the user's Internet Service Provider. How should it travel to the artist? It might pass through the hands of a state agency; it might pass through a collecting society, provided that collective societies are reformed so that any group of artists can start their own. However, artists must not be compelled to work through the existing collecting societies, because these may have antisocial rules. For instance, the collecting societies of some European countries forbid their members to publish anything under licenses that permit sharing (for instance, using any one of the Creative Commons licenses). If Brazil's fund for supporting artists includes foreign artists, they must not be compelled to join those collecting societies in order to receive their shares of Brazilian funds. Whatever chain the money follows, none of the instutions in the chain (ISP, state agency, or collecting society) may have any authority to alter what share goes to each artist. That should be firmly set by the rules of the system. But what should those rules be? What is the best way to apportion the money among all the creative participants? The most obvious method is to compute each artist's share in direct proportion to her work's popularity. (Popularity can be measured by inviting 100,000 randomly chosen people to provide the lists of the works they have played.) That's what "compensate the rights holders" proposals typically do. But that method of distribution is not very effective for promoting the arts, because a large fraction of the funds would go to the few superstars, who are already rich or at least comfortable, leaving little money to support all the artists who really need it. I propose instead to pay each artist according to the cube root of his or her popularity. More precisely, the system could ascertain the popularity of each work, divide that among the work's artists to get a figure for each artist, then compute the cube root of that, and set the artists' shares in proportion to these cube roots. The effect of this would be to increase the shares of moderately popular artists by reducing the shares of superstars. Each individual superstar would still get more than an individual non-superstar, even several times as much, but not hundreds or thousands of times as much. With this offsetting, a given total sum of money will adequately support a larger number of artists. Promoting art and authorship supporting artists and authors is the proper goal of a sharing license fee because it is the proper goal of copyright itself. A final question is whether the system should support foreign authors and artists. It would seem natural for Brazil to demand reciprocity from other countries as a condition of giving support to their authors and artists, but I think that would be a strategic mistake. The best way to convince other countries to adopt a plan like this is not by pressuring them through their artists--they won't feel the lack of these payments because they are not accustomed to receiving any--but rather by educating their artists about the merits of this system. Including them in the system is the way to educate them. Another option is to include foreign artists and authors but cut the payment down to 1/10 when their coutries do not join in reciprocal cooperation. Imagine telling an author, "You have received $50 from Brazil's sharing license levy. If your country had a similar sharing license levy and made a reciprocal agreement with Brazil, you would have received $500 from Brazil just now, plus the amount from your own country." I know of one possible obstacle to adopting this system in Brazil: Free Exploitation Treaties such as the one which established the World Trade Organization. These are designed to make governments act for the benefit of business rather than that of the people; they are the enemies of democracy and of most people's well-being. (We thank Lula for saving South America from ALCA.) Some of them demand "compensation for rights holders" as part of their general policy of favoritism for business. Fortunately this obstacle can be surmounted. If Brazil finds itself compelled to pay for the misguided goal of "compensating rights holders", it can still adopt the system presented above. Here is how. The first step towards ending an unjust dominion is to deny its legitimacy. if Brazil is compelled to "compensate rights holders", it should denounce that imposition as wrong and yield to it temporarily. The denunciation could be stated in the preamble of the law itself, like this: Whereas Brazil wishes to encourage the useful and helpful practice of sharing published works on the Internet. Whereas Brazil is compelled by the World Trade Organization to ransom this freedom from the rights holders, even though that money will mainly enrich publishers rather than supporting artists and authors. Whereas Brazil wishes, aside from that imposed requirement, to support artists and authors better than the existing copyright system does. Then, after establishing a levy for the sake "compensation", establish a second additional levy (equal or greater in amount) for supporting authors and artists. The wasteful, misdirected plan for "compensation" should not be a replacement for the useful, efficient plan. So implement the useful, efficient plan that supports artists directly, because that is good for society, and implement the "compensation" required by the WTO but only so long as the WTO retains the power to impose it. This will begin the transition to a new copyright system that suits the Internet age. Thank you for considering these suggestions. Copyright (c) 2010 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved. ---- http://www.vgrass.de/ http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck/ _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 11:50:15 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:50:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: For any useful purpose, I can confirm that this is not in conformity with either the letter or the spirit of the resolution drafted in the CSTD in May, then endorsed in July at Ecosoc (and later in the GA if I am not mistaken). In addition, this should NOT be a decision by the CSTD bureau. This group is NOT a CSTD group, it is a group that the CHAIR of the CSTD has to convene, "in an open and inclusive manner". These formulations had been chosen on purpose. Non-participation is the way forward but only if significant governments go along. Fallback process could be merely to have a consultation process open to all stakeholders. Joint document would be good, between IGC, Basis, ISOC, but also governments, in particular in the European Union I suppose. Bertrand 2010/12/7 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > The decision was made in a CSTD bureau meeting yesterday at a late hour > when only a limited number of governments where in the room. Only a very > small group of governments, including Portugal and Switzerland, defended the > multistakeholder model but the majority of the CSTD members in the room > argued that it would be better for the process if the governments can > discuss improvement - based on the input of the various stakeholders - among > themselves. > > We have to wait until the official announcement. > > w > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Gesendet: Di 07.12.2010 22:46 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: RE: IGF Improvement > > > > First, let's confirm that rumor. > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Hi everybody > > > > there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to > > establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only > > working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space > in the > > group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental > > members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental > > representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. > > > > We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Wed Dec 8 12:03:41 2010 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:03:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4cffba6d102f2_5c651062167c2eb@weasel16.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Wed Dec 8 12:55:14 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:55:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758ADD26@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Just wanted to add a quick note in favour of a joint doc. So many different people have made public statements about their support of the IGF in terms of its multi-stakeholder structure and form, that I'm sure we could get good support for a joint statement....... Best, Lisa From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: 08 December 2010 16:50 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement For any useful purpose, I can confirm that this is not in conformity with either the letter or the spirit of the resolution drafted in the CSTD in May, then endorsed in July at Ecosoc (and later in the GA if I am not mistaken). In addition, this should NOT be a decision by the CSTD bureau. This group is NOT a CSTD group, it is a group that the CHAIR of the CSTD has to convene, "in an open and inclusive manner". These formulations had been chosen on purpose. Non-participation is the way forward but only if significant governments go along. Fallback process could be merely to have a consultation process open to all stakeholders. Joint document would be good, between IGC, Basis, ISOC, but also governments, in particular in the European Union I suppose. Bertrand 2010/12/7 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > The decision was made in a CSTD bureau meeting yesterday at a late hour when only a limited number of governments where in the room. Only a very small group of governments, including Portugal and Switzerland, defended the multistakeholder model but the majority of the CSTD members in the room argued that it would be better for the process if the governments can discuss improvement - based on the input of the various stakeholders - among themselves. We have to wait until the official announcement. w ________________________________ Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Gesendet: Di 07.12.2010 22:46 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: IGF Improvement First, let's confirm that rumor. > -----Original Message----- > > Hi everybody > > there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to > establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only > working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the > group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental > members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental > representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. > > We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 8 16:33:38 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:33:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Headlines Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DFF1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> [http://internetgovernance.org/images/IGP_logo_Masthead2.gif] December 08, 2010 Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter How to discredit net neutrality Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance" at NYU, December 14 Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ________________________________ Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics At IGP we pride ourselves on having a pretty good bead on internet governance issues, but we have to admit that the emergence of Wikileaks as a global governance issue took us by surprise. The internet has proven itself to be a source of political disruption in a way we did not anticipate. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter Like a clinging, overbearing parent, the U.S. Commerce Department just can’t seem to let go of ICANN. Yesterday Lawrence Strickling, the Assistant Secretary in charge of the NTIA, sent a stern letter to the ICANN’s CEO in an attempt to dictate the course of domain name policy. Strickling called for yet another delay in the implementation of new top level domains because - incredibly - he claims that the issue hasn’t been studied enough! Strickling thus ignores ten years of research, deliberation and debate both inside and outside ICANN – some of it commissioned by the Commerce Department itself. Here's a little bedtime reading to bring Strickling and the rest of the NTIA up to speed on the ongoing debate over the economic implications of new top level domains. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • How to discredit net neutrality On Tuesday (November 30) Internet backbone provider Level3 publicly accused cable-based ISP Comcast of trying to thwart competing video services delivered through the internet. There is an important lesson to be drawn from this peering dispute about how to pursue - and not to pursue - the goals of Internet freedom associated with net neutrality. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis A new paper on ownership rights in IPv4 addresses has been drafted; it is posted here. Author Ernesto Rubi is a J.D. candidate at Florida International University School of Law. The paper explores the legal framework (or rather, the lack thereof) surrounding IP addresses. The depletion of the IPv4 free pool will, the author contends, intensify arguments about ownership interests in ipv4 address blocks. He concludes that “the concept of IP number ‘ownership’ or claim of right may be inevitable.” [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance" at NYU, December 14 ISOC-NY is delighted to present Milton Mueller’s first full exposition of his new book Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance at NYU on Tuesday December 14 2010. Prof. Mueller is a co-founder of ICANN’s NonCommercial User’s Constituency and a renowned cyberlibertarian. His 2002 book Ruling the Root has long been the definitive work on governance. We are excited to hear details of what, in his mind, has changed in the last 8 years. This event is open to the public and will be webcast live. What: Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance When: Tuesday December 14 2010 : 7-9pm Where: Rm 317, Warren Weaver Hall NYU, 251 Mercer St NYC (& W. 4 St) Who: Public welcome. No RSVP needed. Photo ID required. Webcast: http://www.livestream.com/isocny Hashtag: #isocny Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175907139093951 Calendar: Add to Google Calendar [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Wed Dec 8 17:07:46 2010 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:07:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Internet Governance Project Headlines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Internet Governance Project Date: Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM Subject: [IGP-CORE] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines To: IGP at listserv.syr.edu [image: Internet Governance Project] December 08, 2010 Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_0> Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_1> How to discredit net neutrality <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_2> Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_3> Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance" at NYU, December 14 <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_4> Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ------------------------------ Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics At IGP we pride ourselves on having a pretty good bead on internet governance issues, but we have to admit that the emergence of Wikileaks as a global governance issue took us by surprise. The internet has proven itself to be a source of political disruption in a way we did not anticipate. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter Like a clinging, overbearing parent, the U.S. Commerce Department just can’t seem to let go of ICANN. Yesterday Lawrence Strickling, the Assistant Secretary in charge of the NTIA, sent a stern letter to the ICANN’s CEO in an attempt to dictate the course of domain name policy. Strickling called for yet another delay in the implementation of new top level domains because - incredibly - he claims that the issue hasn’t been studied enough! Strickling thus ignores ten years of research, deliberation and debate both inside and outside ICANN – some of it commissioned by the Commerce Department itself. Here's a little bedtime reading to bring Strickling and the rest of the NTIA up to speed on the ongoing debate over the economic implications of new top level domains. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • How to discredit net neutrality On Tuesday (November 30) Internet backbone provider Level3 publicly accused cable-based ISP Comcast of trying to thwart competing video services delivered through the internet. There is an important lesson to be drawn from this peering dispute about how to pursue - and not to pursue - the goals of Internet freedom associated with net neutrality. • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis A new paper on ownership rights in IPv4 addresses has been drafted; it is posted here. Author Ernesto Rubi is a J.D. candidate at Florida International University School of Law. The paper explores the legal framework (or rather, the lack thereof) surrounding IP addresses. The depletion of the IPv4 free pool will, the author contends, intensify arguments about ownership interests in ipv4 address blocks. He concludes that “the concept of IP number ‘ownership’ or claim of right may be inevitable.” • Email to a friend• Article Search• • Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance" at NYU, December 14 ISOC-NYis delighted to present Milton Mueller’s first full exposition of his new book Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governanceat NYU on Tuesday December 14 2010. Prof. Mueller is a co-founder of ICANN’s NonCommercial User’s Constituency and a renowned cyberlibertarian. His 2002 book Ruling the Roothas long been the definitive work on governance. We are excited to hear details of what, in his mind, has changed in the last 8 years. This event is open to the public and will be webcast live. *What:* Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance *When:* Tuesday December 14 2010 : 7-9pm *Where:* Rm 317, Warren Weaver Hall NYU, 251 Mercer St NYC (& W. 4 St) *Who:* Public welcome. No RSVP needed. Photo ID required. *Webcast:* http://www.livestream.com/isocny *Hashtag:* #isocny *Facebook:* http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175907139093951 *Calendar:* Add to Google Calendar • Email to a friend• Article Search• • ------------------------------ *Click here to safely unsubscribe nowfrom "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change your subscription , view mailing archives or subscribe * ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Dec 8 19:53:28 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:53:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Message-ID: Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action… We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 8 20:26:43 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:26:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Ixumi, Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately. Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs for any objections to surface on the list. If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done. My 2 centavos on how to play this. Lee PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then. ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM To: Governance List Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action… We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Dec 8 20:29:53 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (jam at jacquelinemorris.com) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 01:29:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WGcomposition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <717636796-1291858013-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-781369243-@bda820.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Yes, we should sign! Jacqueline Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:53:28 To: Governance List Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action… We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 20:30:47 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:30:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the need to act quickly Rafik 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight > Ixumi, > > Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately. > > Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since > the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for > our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs > for any objections to surface on the list. > > If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done. > > My 2 centavos on how to play this. > > Lee > > PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on 14th > as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can help > make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then. > ________________________________________ > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [ > iza at anr.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM > To: Governance List > Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG > composition only by governments > > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking > IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums”. > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 8 20:36:47 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:36:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree that we sign it as well. That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any additional point we believe it would be important to make. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the > need to act quickly > Rafik > > > > 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight > > Ixumi, >> >> Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately. >> >> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since >> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for >> our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs >> for any objections to surface on the list. >> >> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done. >> >> My 2 centavos on how to play this. >> >> Lee >> >> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on >> 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can >> help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then. >> ________________________________________ >> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [ >> iza at anr.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM >> To: Governance List >> Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG >> composition only by governments >> >> Dear list, >> >> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >> >> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >> >> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking >> IGC >> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >> >> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >> but in this >> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >> >> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. >> >> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >> >> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >> needed and important for us. >> >> I hope you understand and support this. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> ------------------ >> DRAFT >> >> To Frederic Riehl >> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >> >> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision >> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >> will be composed exclusively of member states. >> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >> the creation of the IGF itself: >> >> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >> proposals for action… >> >> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s >> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >> September 2010. >> >> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >> acceptable. >> >> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums”. >> >> ------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 20:38:47 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:38:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree too Deirdre On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I agree that we sign it as well. > > That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any > additional point we believe it would be important to make. > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the >> need to act quickly >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight >> >> Ixumi, >>> >>> Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately. >>> >>> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since >>> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for >>> our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs >>> for any objections to surface on the list. >>> >>> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done. >>> >>> My 2 centavos on how to play this. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on >>> 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can >>> help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then. >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU >>> [iza at anr.org] >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM >>> To: Governance List >>> Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG >>> composition only by governments >>> >>> Dear list, >>> >>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >>> >>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >>> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >>> >>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and >>> asking IGC >>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >>> >>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >>> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >>> but in this >>> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >>> >>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. >>> >>> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >>> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >>> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >>> >>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >>> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >>> needed and important for us. >>> >>> I hope you understand and support this. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> ------------------ >>> DRAFT >>> >>> To Frederic Riehl >>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >>> >>> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision >>> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >>> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >>> will be composed exclusively of member states. >>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >>> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >>> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >>> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >>> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >>> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >>> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >>> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >>> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >>> the creation of the IGF itself: >>> >>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >>> proposals for action… >>> >>> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >>> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s >>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >>> September 2010. >>> >>> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >>> acceptable. >>> >>> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >>> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >>> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >>> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >>> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >>> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of >>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>> international organizations and forums”. >>> >>> ------------------ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 21:11:02 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:11:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1C857AA3338044A09FBFDFE3EE2EC7BD@userPC> I'm okay with signing onto this immediately. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments I agree too Deirdre On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel wrote: I agree that we sign it as well. That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any additional point we believe it would be important to make. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the need to act quickly Rafik 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight Ixumi, Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately. Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs for any objections to surface on the list. If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done. My 2 centavos on how to play this. Lee PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then. ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM To: Governance List Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action. We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring "the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums". ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for 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 -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Dec 8 21:11:23 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:11:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/12/2010, at 8:53 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. This all happened while I was asleep, but I agree we should sign and send immediately, and I think it supersedes our earlier draft as IGC that the coordinators and CSTD nominees had been working on. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Dec 8 21:14:25 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:14:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <1C857AA3338044A09FBFDFE3EE2EC7BD@userPC> Message-ID: Yep lets just do it From: Michael Gurstein Reply-To: , Michael Gurstein Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:11:02 -0800 To: , 'Deirdre Williams' , 'Marilia Maciel' Subject: RE: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments I'm okay with signing onto this immediately. Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG > composition only by governments > > I agree too > Deirdre > > > On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> I agree that we sign it as well. >> >> That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any >> additional point we believe it would be important to make. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> >>> I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the >>> need to act quickly >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Ixumi, >>>> >>>> Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately. >>>> >>>> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since >>>> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is >>>> for our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say >>>> 12hrs for any objections to surface on the list. >>>> >>>> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done. >>>> >>>> My 2 centavos on how to play this. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> >>>> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on >>>> 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can >>>> help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then. >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU >>>> [iza at anr.org] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM >>>> To: Governance List >>>> Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG >>>> composition only by governments >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear list, >>>> >>>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >>>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >>>> >>>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >>>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >>>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >>>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >>>> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >>>> >>>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking >>>> IGC >>>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >>>> >>>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >>>> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >>>> but in this >>>> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >>>> >>>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >>>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >>>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. >>>> >>>> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >>>> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >>>> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >>>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >>>> >>>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >>>> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >>>> needed and important for us. >>>> >>>> I hope you understand and support this. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> ------------------ >>>> DRAFT >>>> >>>> To Frederic Riehl >>>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >>>> >>>> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau¹s decision >>>> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >>>> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >>>> will be composed exclusively of member states. >>>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >>>> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >>>> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >>>> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >>>> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >>>> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >>>> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >>>> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >>>> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >>>> the creation of the IGF itself: >>>> >>>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >>>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >>>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>>> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >>>> proposals for actionŠ >>>> >>>> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >>>> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >>>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair¹s >>>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >>>> September 2010. >>>> >>>> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >>>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >>>> acceptable. >>>> >>>> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >>>> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >>>> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >>>> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >>>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >>>> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >>>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >>>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >>>> formulation ensuring ³the full and active participation of >>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>>> international organizations and forums². >>>> >>>> ------------------ >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for 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 > > > > -- > ³The 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Dec 8 21:15:55 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:15:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition Message-ID: Dear list, Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG for both substance and the tone/style. I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final wording as much as possible. best, izumi --------------------- Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey Chairperson UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, Vice Chairperson, UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed true. In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and spirit. The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. As the Chair’s Summary says: *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive manner” * In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some additional time. We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all stakeholders. We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 8 21:39:15 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:39:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice Message-ID: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democ racies-must-live-with-leaks ---------------------------------------------------- 'Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks revelations. The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the real thing. And as the backlash unfolds - first with deniable attacks on internet service providers hosting WikiLeaks, later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal suddenly "discovering" that their terms and conditions preclude them from offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about WikiLeaks on Facebook - the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy and about the future of the net. There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down. Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. "Information has never been so free," declared Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable." She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what we now know, that Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece. One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western democracies have been deceiving their electorates. The leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the American, British and other Nato governments privately admit that too. The problem is that they cannot face their electorates - who also happen to be the taxpayers funding this folly - and tell them this. The leaked dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide vivid confirmation that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and incompetent as the South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was when the US was propping it up in the 1970s. And they also make it clear that the US is as much a captive of that regime as it was in Vietnam. The WikiLeaks revelations expose the extent to which the US and its allies see no real prospect of turning Afghanistan into a viable state, let alone a functioning democracy. They show that there is no light at the end of this tunnel. But the political establishments in Washington, London and Brussels cannot bring themselves to admit this. Afghanistan is, in that sense, a quagmire in the same way that Vietnam was. The only differences are that the war is now being fought by non-conscripted troops and we are not carpet-bombing civilians. The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on the internet, or which enable you to rent "virtual" computers - again located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which they provide both "free" and paid-for services will always give them grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud computing - one day it will rain on your parade. Look at the case of Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic Compute Cloud the moment the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman, a US senator who suffers from a terminal case of hubris, harassed the company over the matter. Later Lieberman declared grandly that he would be "asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information". This led the New Yorker's Amy Davidson to ask whether "Lieberman feels that he, or any senator, can call in the company running the New Yorker's printing presses when we are preparing a story that includes leaked classified material, and tell it to stop us". What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their reflex reaction is to kill the messenger. As Simon Jenkins put it recently in the Guardian, "Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted. Accountability can only default to disclosure." What we are hearing from the enraged officialdom of our democracies is mostly the petulant screaming of emperors whose clothes have been shredded by the net. Which brings us back to the larger significance of this controversy. The political elites of western democracies have discovered that the internet can be a thorn not just in the side of authoritarian regimes, but in their sides too. It has been comical watching them and their agencies stomp about the net like maddened, half-blind giants trying to whack a mole. It has been deeply worrying to watch terrified internet companies - with the exception of Twitter, so far - bending to their will. But politicians now face an agonising dilemma. The old, mole-whacking approach won't work. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology. Thousands of copies of those secret cables - and probably of much else besides - are out there, distributed by peer-to-peer technologies like BitTorrent . Our rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a WikiLeakable world, with all that implies in terms of their future behaviour; or they shut down the internet. Over to them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 8 21:48:36 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:18:36 -0430 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D004384.60903@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Wed Dec 8 22:51:34 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 01:51:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D005246.8020801@nic.br> agreed ... ======================== On 08/12/10 22:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums”. > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 8 23:26:01 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:26:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: <1C857AA3338044A09FBFDFE3EE2EC7BD@userPC> Message-ID: Sign fine, rgds, mctim On 12/9/10, Ian Peter wrote: > Yep lets just do it > > > > From: Michael Gurstein > Reply-To: , Michael Gurstein > Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:11:02 -0800 > To: , 'Deirdre Williams' > , 'Marilia Maciel' > Subject: RE: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG > composition only by governments > > I'm okay with signing onto this immediately. > > Mike >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams >> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:39 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG >> composition only by governments >> >> I agree too >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> I agree that we sign it as well. >>> >>> That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with >>> any >>> additional point we believe it would be important to make. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and >>>> the >>>> need to act quickly >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Ixumi, >>>>> >>>>> Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately. >>>>> >>>>> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and >>>>> since >>>>> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver >>>>> is >>>>> for our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait >>>>> say >>>>> 12hrs for any objections to surface on the list. >>>>> >>>>> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done. >>>>> >>>>> My 2 centavos on how to play this. >>>>> >>>>> Lee >>>>> >>>>> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on >>>>> 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I >>>>> can >>>>> help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, >>>>> then. >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi >>>>> AIZU >>>>> [iza at anr.org] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM >>>>> To: Governance List >>>>> Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG >>>>> composition only by governments >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear list, >>>>> >>>>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >>>>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >>>>> >>>>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had >>>>> on >>>>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >>>>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >>>>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >>>>> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and >>>>> asking >>>>> IGC >>>>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >>>>> >>>>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >>>>> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >>>>> but in this >>>>> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >>>>> >>>>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >>>>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >>>>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint >>>>> one. >>>>> >>>>> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >>>>> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >>>>> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >>>>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >>>>> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >>>>> needed and important for us. >>>>> >>>>> I hope you understand and support this. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> izumi >>>>> >>>>> ------------------ >>>>> DRAFT >>>>> >>>>> To Frederic Riehl >>>>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >>>>> >>>>> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau¹s decision >>>>> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >>>>> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >>>>> will be composed exclusively of member states. >>>>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >>>>> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >>>>> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >>>>> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >>>>> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >>>>> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >>>>> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >>>>> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >>>>> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >>>>> the creation of the IGF itself: >>>>> >>>>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >>>>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >>>>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >>>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>>>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>>>> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >>>>> proposals for actionŠ >>>>> >>>>> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >>>>> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >>>>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair¹s >>>>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >>>>> September 2010. >>>>> >>>>> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >>>>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >>>>> acceptable. >>>>> >>>>> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >>>>> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >>>>> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >>>>> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >>>>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >>>>> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >>>>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >>>>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >>>>> formulation ensuring ³the full and active participation of >>>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>>>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>>>> international organizations and forums². >>>>> >>>>> ------------------ >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>> FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Center for 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ³The 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 > > -- Sent from my mobile device 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 9 02:02:31 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:02:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <610475.20856.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hello all, I support signing this letter. Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Burundi Youth Training Centre www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Izumi AIZU À : Governance List Envoyé le : Jeu 9 décembre 2010, 2h 53min 28s Objet : [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action… We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 02:52:40 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:22:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net> The WikiLeak case in indeed a watershed IG event, in the manner the US gov has exercised extra-legal authority, using its political and economic might in a rather comprehensive manner, to control global traffic flows on the Internet. Will IGC want to issue a statement on this? This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights, is urgently required. The same process would be the place for redress in case of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present case. If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go beyond just making process related statements, which often attract the cynical judgment that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear connections to real substantive global IG issues. Parminder Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice > > here it is: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > 'Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama > team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us > see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks > revelations . > > The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really > sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture > of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the > real thing. > > And as the backlash unfolds – first with deniable attacks on internet > service providers hosting WikiLeaks > , > later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal > suddenly > "discovering" that their terms and conditions preclude them from > offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government > attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about > WikiLeaks on Facebook – the intolerance of the old order is emerging > from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The > response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, > and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy > and about the future of the net. > > There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called > liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down. > > Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have > changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary > Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington > DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to > China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. "Information has never > been so free," declared Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, > information networks are helping people discover new facts and making > governments more accountable." > > She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, > Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access > information, and said that the more freely information flows the > stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information > helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new > ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what we now know, that > Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece. > > One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the > revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western > democracies have been deceiving their electorates. > > The leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European > adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the > American, British and other Nato governments privately admit that too. > > The problem is that they cannot face their electorates – who also > happen to be the taxpayers funding this folly – and tell them this. > The leaked dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide > vivid confirmation that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and > incompetent as the South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was when the US > was propping it up in the 1970s. And they also make it clear that the > US is as much a captive of that regime as it was in Vietnam. > > The WikiLeaks revelations expose the extent to which the US and its > allies see no real prospect of turning Afghanistan into a viable > state, let alone a functioning democracy. They show that there is no > light at the end of this tunnel. But the political establishments in > Washington, London and Brussels cannot bring themselves to admit this. > > Afghanistan is, in that sense, a quagmire in the same way that Vietnam > was. The only differences are that the war is now being fought by > non-conscripted troops and we are not carpet-bombing civilians. > > The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who > has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. > These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon > which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on > the internet, or which enable you to rent "virtual" computers – again > located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which > they provide both "free" and paid-for services will always give them > grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests > to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud > computing – one day it will rain on your parade. > > Look at the case of Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic > Compute Cloud > the moment > the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman, a US senator who > suffers from a terminal case of hubris, harassed the company over the > matter. Later Lieberman declared grandly that he would be "asking > Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it > and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that > their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified > information". This led the New Yorker's Amy Davidson to ask > > whether "Lieberman feels that he, or any senator, can call in the > company running the New Yorker's printing presses when we are > preparing a story that includes leaked classified material, and tell > it to stop us". > > What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western > democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its > political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US > and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation > to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in > Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any > effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their > way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their > reflex reaction is to kill the messenger. > > As Simon Jenkins put it recently > > in the Guardian, "Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal > boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it > is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are > cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted. Accountability can > only default to disclosure." What we are hearing from the enraged > officialdom of our democracies is mostly the petulant screaming of > emperors whose clothes have been shredded by the net. > > Which brings us back to the larger significance of this controversy. > The political elites of western democracies have discovered that the > internet can be a thorn not just in the side of authoritarian regimes, > but in their sides too. It has been comical watching them and their > agencies stomp about the net like maddened, half-blind giants trying > to whack a mole. It has been deeply worrying to watch terrified > internet companies – with the exception of Twitter, so far – bending > to their will. > > But politicians now face an agonising dilemma. The old, mole-whacking > approach won't work. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology. > Thousands of copies of those secret cables – and probably of much else > besides – are out there, distributed by peer-to-peer technologies like > BitTorrent . > Our rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a > WikiLeakable world, with all that implies in terms of their future > behaviour; or they shut down the internet. Over to them. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 9 01:53:53 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:53:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I must say, nice to see ISOC standing up on this issue ­ they have not always historically shown independence from the US Government and this is a great step and an admirable one. Presumably this also means that wikileaks.org .(org being run by PIR which is effectively owned by ISOC) ­ will also stand independent of USG pressure - unless there is a legal action (rather than political pressure) which forces them to take action to restrict access. So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet. I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! Ian Peter From: Michael Gurstein Reply-To: , Michael Gurstein Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:19:09 -0800 To: Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC Source: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706 ISOC Monthly Newsletter The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the Internet of a website made infamous through international press coverage and political intrigue. The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that those principles are currently at risk. Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org website is the subject of concern to a variety of individuals and nations, we nevertheless believe it must be subject to the same laws and policies of availability as all Internet sites. Free expression should not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet. Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design principle. The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all access to Wikileaks material. This further underscores that the removal of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation. Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the air. (end) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 9 03:00:05 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet. and Twitter. > I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 9 03:40:44 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 08:40:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9eZkD$KMYJANFAoS@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 15:11:21 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the CSTD >session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD model of [in >the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and WSIS accredited >entities. "Information for Participants" now published reflects this. Meeting of 15-17th December, where final day is the IGF Improvement WG. http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d05_en.pdf http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=14168&lang=1&intItemID=2068 -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Dec 9 03:51:03 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 00:51:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4649935.36223.1291884628846.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21> I aggree and sign this letter Many thanks Izumi for your prompt reactiion Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 09/12/10 01:54 > De : "Izumi AIZU" > A : "Governance List" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments > > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums”. > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 9 03:56:29 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:56:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> Message-ID: >Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al. Along the lines of the latter I think ­ we can say recent events such as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for.... While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of un co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols. From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800 To: , Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to > political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let > alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and > Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet. and Twitter. > I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From graciela at nupef.org.br Thu Dec 9 04:23:39 2010 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:23:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <4649935.36223.1291884628846.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21> References: <4649935.36223.1291884628846.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21> Message-ID: <4D00A01B.6040400@nupef.org.br> I also agree. Thanks, Izumi. Graciela Selaimen Instituto Nupef > > Message du 09/12/10 01:54 > > De : "Izumi AIZU" > > A : "Governance List" > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG > composition only by governments > > > > Dear list, > > > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work > we had on > > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, > and asking IGC > > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost > final. > > > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to > decide, > > but in this > > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the > joint one. > > > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your > comments. > > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > > needed and important for us. > > > > I hope you understand and support this. > > > > best, > > > > izumi > > > > ------------------ > > DRAFT > > > > To Frederic Riehl > > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > > will be composed exclusively of member states. > > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during > the CSTD > > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS > Plan of > > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and > ultimately > > the creation of the IGF itself: > > > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a > working > > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > > governments, the private sector and civil society from both > developing > > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > > proposals for action… > > > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group > would > > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > > September 2010. > > > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > > acceptable. > > > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the > CSTD, but > > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > > governments, the private sector and civil society from both > developing > > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > > international organizations and forums”. > > > > ------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 04:36:08 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 01:36:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net> References: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <16805863.38411.1291887311553.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21> The paradigm shift in freedom of expression on the net, mentioned by the Guardian, justifies Parminder's concerns in IG. We have here an actual and very concrete case directly linked to Internet Govenrance which has its roots not only in the existent (US) laws, constituencies, processings dealing with Internet, but also in the global Internet network architecture. Therfore I'd kindly ask the IGC to issue the statement proposed by Parminder. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT  > Message du 09/12/10 08:53 > De : "parminder" > A : "Michael Gurstein" > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Research and Advocacy Team" > Objet : [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice > > > The WikiLeak case in indeed a watershed IG event, in the manner the US gov has exercised extra-legal authority, using its political and economic might in a rather comprehensive manner,  to control global traffic flows on the Internet. > > Will IGC want to issue a statement on this? > > This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights, is urgently required. The same process would be the place for redress in case of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present case. > > If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go beyond just making process related statements, which often attract the cynical judgment that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear connections to real substantive global IG issues. > > Parminder > >   > Michael Gurstein wrote: Message Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks  > >  ----------------------------------------------------  > 'Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks revelations. > The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the real thing. > And as the backlash unfolds – first with deniable attacks on internet service providers hosting WikiLeaks, later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal suddenly "discovering" that their terms and conditions preclude them from offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about WikiLeaks on Facebook – the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy and about the future of the net. > There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down. > Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. "Information has never been so free," declared Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable." > She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what we now know, that Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece. > One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western democracies have been deceiving their electorates. > The leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the American, British and other Nato governments privately admit that too. > The problem is that they cannot face their electorates – who also happen to be the taxpayers funding this folly – and tell them this. The leaked dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide vivid confirmation that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and incompetent as the South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was when the US was propping it up in the 1970s. And they also make it clear that the US is as much a captive of that regime as it was in Vietnam. > The WikiLeaks revelations expose the extent to which the US and its allies see no real prospect of turning Afghanistan into a viable state, let alone a functioning democracy. They show that there is no light at the end of this tunnel. But the political establishments in Washington, London and Brussels cannot bring themselves to admit this. > Afghanistan is, in that sense, a quagmire in the same way that Vietnam was. The only differences are that the war is now being fought by non-conscripted troops and we are not carpet-bombing civilians. > The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on the internet, or which enable you to rent "virtual" computers – again located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which they provide both "free" and paid-for services will always give them grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud computing – one day it will rain on your parade. > Look at the case of Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic Compute Cloud the moment the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman, a US senator who suffers from a terminal case of hubris, harassed the company over the matter. Later Lieberman declared grandly that he would be "asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information". This led the New Yorker's Amy Davidson to ask whether "Lieberman feels that he, or any senator, can call in the company running the New Yorker's printing presses when we are preparing a story that includes leaked classified material, and tell it to stop us". > What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their reflex reaction is to kill the messenger. > As Simon Jenkins put it recently in the Guardian, "Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted. Accountability can only default to disclosure." What we are hearing from the enraged officialdom of our democracies is mostly the petulant screaming of emperors whose clothes have been shredded by the net. > Which brings us back to the larger significance of this controversy. The political elites of western democracies have discovered that the internet can be a thorn not just in the side of authoritarian regimes, but in their sides too. It has been comical watching them and their agencies stomp about the net like maddened, half-blind giants trying to whack a mole. It has been deeply worrying to watch terrified internet companies – with the exception of Twitter, so far – bending to their will. > But politicians now face an agonising dilemma. The old, mole-whacking approach won't work. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology. Thousands of copies of those secret cables – and probably of much else besides – are out there, distributed by peer-to-peer technologies like BitTorrent. Our rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a WikiLeakable world, with all that implies in terms of their future behaviour; or they shut down the internet. Over to them. > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Dec 9 04:46:46 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:46:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with this text. - - - On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, > NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. > > As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG > for both substance and the tone/style. > > I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end > of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is > a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and > b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier > > Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final > wording as much as possible. > > best, > > izumi > > --------------------- > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will > comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private > Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no > official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if > the above mentioned is indeed true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, > would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is > apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC > resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive > manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be > communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to > identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present > process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this > important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the > Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > letter and spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF > consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working > Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character > and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and > should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of > the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the > private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in > the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive > manner” > * > > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not > in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil > society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from > the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to > the continued development and success of building the people-centered > Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we > do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some > additional time. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have > acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible > consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole > ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a > unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all > stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that > our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear > that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to > the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been > built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful > multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, > and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this > crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dcogburn at syr.edu Thu Dec 9 04:49:53 2010 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 04:49:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with the text. DLC Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor of International Relations International Communication Program School of International Service American University Director: Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) http://cotelco.net Sent from my iPad On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:47 AM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > wrote: I agree with this text. - - - On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote: Dear list, Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG for both substance and the tone/style. I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final wording as much as possible. best, izumi --------------------- Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey Chairperson UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, Vice Chairperson, UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed true. In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and spirit. The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. As the Chair’s Summary says: It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive manner” In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some additional time. We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all stakeholders. We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter at peter-dambier.de Thu Dec 9 04:51:19 2010 From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:51:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D00A697.4060202@peter-dambier.de> Sorry for the noise and for being absent so long. The fracture in DNS has happened and is getting deeper. Alternative roots do resolve the original "wikileaks.org". In case you need it or want to tell somebody how to include it in their local DNS, here is an example: wikileaks.org. 1800 IN AAAA 2a00:12d8:100:99::202 wikileaks.org. 1800 IN A 46.59.1.2 wikileaks.org. 1800 IN A 88.80.6.179 wikileaks.org. 1800 IN A 178.21.20.8 wikileaks.org. 1800 IN A 212.117.162.17 wikileaks.org. 1800 IN A 213.251.145.96 wikileaks.org. 1800 IN A 46.21.239.250 wikileaks.org. 1800 IN NS l-root.cesidio.net. ... and sometimes DNS is running on port 3001 not 53. I think this information is interesting for analyzing the impact of wikileaks or blocking wikileaks (more than 1000 mirrors). Thank you Peter Dambier Michael Gurstein wrote: > Source: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706 > > ISOC Monthly Newsletter > > > The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue > > Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the > Internet of a website made infamous through international press coverage > and political intrigue. > > The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression > and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and > utility of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically > illustrates that those principles are currently at risk. > > Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org > website is the subject of concern to a variety of individuals and > nations, we nevertheless believe it must be subject to the same laws and > policies of availability as all Internet sites. Free expression should > not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer > hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other > essential components of the Internet. > > Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design > principle. The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that > the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all > access to Wikileaks material. This further underscores that the removal > of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely > serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation. > > Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the > wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical > solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and > appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that > acted maliciously to take it off the air. > > (end) > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 06:11:15 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:41:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D00B953.2010109@itforchange.net> Ian Peter wrote: > >Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we > disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing > with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be > >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in > future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, > I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of > >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from > those of free speech groups et al. > > Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such > as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for.... > > While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also > be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the > absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of un > co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established > legal protocols. > I agree. parminder > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *Jeremy Malcolm > *Date: *Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800 > *To: *, Ian Peter > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC > > On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave > in to political pressure, although there is no legal action > against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, > ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have > stood firmly on the side of a free Internet. > > > and Twitter. > > I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! > > > Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we > disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing > with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be > democratically developed to guide public and private responses in > future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, > I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core > competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those > of free speech groups et al. > > -- > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 9 07:06:29 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:06:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it. jeanette Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums”. > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 valeriab at apc.org Thu Dec 9 07:22:19 2010 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:22:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, APC supports that IGC signs the letter. Best, Valeria 2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann > Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I > support that the IGC signs it. > > jeanette > > Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: > > Dear list, >> >> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >> >> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >> >> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking >> IGC >> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >> >> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >> but in this >> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >> >> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. >> >> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >> >> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >> needed and important for us. >> >> I hope you understand and support this. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> ------------------ >> DRAFT >> >> To Frederic Riehl >> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >> >> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision >> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >> will be composed exclusively of member states. >> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >> the creation of the IGF itself: >> >> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >> proposals for action… >> >> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s >> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >> September 2010. >> >> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >> acceptable. >> >> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums”. >> >> ------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Thu Dec 9 07:39:17 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:39:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20101209124006.4B03E4C7E6@npogroups.org> I support the letter and also support that IGC signs it. Thanking you, Hakikur At 12:06 PM 12/9/2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The >letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it. > >jeanette > >Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: >>Dear list, >> >>The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >>is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >> >>I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >>Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >>concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >>meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >>ICANN, ccNSO etc. >> >>Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to >>send it shortly, and asking IGC >>to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >> >>I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >>please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >>but in this >>special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >> >>I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >>it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >>to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. >> >>I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >>We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >>if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >>read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >> >>Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >>acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >>needed and important for us. >> >>I hope you understand and support this. >> >>best, >> >>izumi >> >>------------------ >>DRAFT >> >>To Frederic Riehl >>Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >> >>We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision >>that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >>(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >>will be composed exclusively of member states. >>This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >>in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >>asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >>compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >>stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >>in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >>These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >>Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >>successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >>the creation of the IGF itself: >> >>We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >>group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >>ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >>governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >>proposals for action >> >>We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >>be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >>multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s >>recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >>September 2010. >> >>The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >>letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >>acceptable. >> >>In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >>decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >>rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >>instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >>The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >>request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >>urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >>appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >>formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of >>governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >>and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >>international organizations and forums”. >> >>------------------ >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 9 07:39:43 2010 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:39:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <996088.52273.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi and list,   I am supporting that IGC signs this letter,   regards,   Jean Yves G --- En date de : Jeu 9.12.10, Valeria Betancourt a écrit : De: Valeria Betancourt Objet: Re: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Jeudi 9 décembre 2010, 13h22 Dear Izumi, APC supports that IGC signs the letter. Best, Valeria 2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it. jeanette Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action… We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Thu Dec 9 07:40:14 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:40:14 +0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net> Total support Izumi. Best wishes Shahzad From: valeriabet at gmail.com [mailto:valeriabet at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Valeria Betancourt Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:22 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear Izumi, APC supports that IGC signs the letter. Best, Valeria 2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it. jeanette Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Thu Dec 9 07:57:46 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:57:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net> References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758ADD33@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> From me too. Thanks! Lisa From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Shahzad Ahmad Sent: 09 December 2010 12:40 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Total support Izumi. Best wishes Shahzad From: valeriabet at gmail.com [mailto:valeriabet at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Valeria Betancourt Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:22 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear Izumi, APC supports that IGC signs the letter. Best, Valeria 2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann > Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it. jeanette Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action... We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring "the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums". ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Dec 9 09:13:39 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:13:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: text is good in general. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Derrick L. Cogburn wrote: > I agree with the text. > DLC > > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor of International Relations > International Communication Program > School of International Service > American University > Director: Center for Research on Collaboratories and > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > http://cotelco.net > Sent from my iPad > On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:47 AM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > I agree with this text. > - - - > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Dear list, >> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, >> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. >> >> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG >> for both substance and the tone/style. >> >> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end >> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is >> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and >> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier >> >> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final >> wording as much as possible. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> --------------------- >> >> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey >> Chairperson >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> >> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, >> Vice Chairperson, >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> >> >> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, >> >> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. >> >> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will >> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private >> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no >> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if >> the above mentioned is indeed true. >> >> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, >> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is >> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC >> resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive >> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be >> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to >> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present >> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this >> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the >> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in >> letter and spirit. >> >> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF >> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working >> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. >> >> As the Chair’s Summary says: >> It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character >> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and >> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of >> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. >> >> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was >> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of >> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the >> private sector. >> >> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the >> model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set >> up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and >> inclusive manner” >> >> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not >> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil >> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from >> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to >> the continued development and success of building the people-centered >> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles >> including that "The international management of the Internet should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.” >> >> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but >> we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some >> additional time. >> >> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have >> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible >> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole >> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a >> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all >> stakeholders. >> >> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and >> that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we >> fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, >> to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has >> been built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful >> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, >> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this >> crucial time. >> >> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 9 09:17:07 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:17:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Milton wrote a nice piece for the IGP blog on the Wikileaks issue....check out the newslettter we sent around yesterday. The Wikileaks thing from an IGC perspective is not about 'supporting' WikiLeaks, but about supporting open, transparent, governance of...critical Internet resources or however we phrase it for a broader audience to significantly raise the profile of IGC. So yeah I agree timing is good to play off Wikileaks to highlight our broader concerns, highlighted by Wikileaks and the CSTD shenanigans. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:56 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC >Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al. Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for.... While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of un co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800 To: , Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet. and Twitter. I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al. -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 09:18:04 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:18:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree Deirdre On 9 December 2010 10:13, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > text is good in general. > > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Derrick L. Cogburn > wrote: > > I agree with the text. > > DLC > > > > > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > > Associate Professor of International Relations > > International Communication Program > > School of International Service > > American University > > Director: Center for Research on Collaboratories and > > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) > > http://cotelco.net > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:47 AM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > wrote: > > > > I agree with this text. > > - - - > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> Dear list, > >> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, > >> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. > >> > >> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG > >> for both substance and the tone/style. > >> > >> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end > >> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is > >> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and > >> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier > >> > >> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final > >> wording as much as possible. > >> > >> best, > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> --------------------- > >> > >> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > >> Chairperson > >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > >> > >> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > >> Vice Chairperson, > >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > >> > >> > >> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > >> > >> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > >> > >> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF > will > >> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, > Private > >> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is > no > >> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation > if > >> the above mentioned is indeed true. > >> > >> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the > undersigned, > >> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is > >> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC > >> resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive > >> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be > >> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to > >> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the > present > >> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this > >> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of > the > >> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > >> letter and spirit. > >> > >> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF > >> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the > Working > >> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work > method. > >> > >> As the Chair’s Summary says: > >> It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder > character > >> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and > >> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods > of > >> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > >> > >> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > >> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > >> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and > the > >> private sector. > >> > >> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the > >> model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was > set > >> up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and > >> inclusive manner” > >> > >> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is > not > >> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil > >> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded > from > >> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical > to > >> the continued development and success of building the people-centered > >> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles > >> including that "The international management of the Internet should be > >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international > >> organizations.” > >> > >> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but > >> we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require > some > >> additional time. > >> > >> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we > have > >> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible > >> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole > >> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a > >> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to > all > >> stakeholders. > >> > >> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and > >> that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not > mistaken, we > >> fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but > rather, > >> to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has > >> been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful > >> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and > irrelevant, > >> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at > this > >> crucial time. > >> > >> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 09:18:44 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:18:44 +0500 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The statement is fully supported by myself but it would still be wise to request Parminder for more thoughts and Miguel to help us with the language of the statement! Best Fouad On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, > NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. > > As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG > for both substance and the tone/style. > > I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end > of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is > a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and > b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier > > Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final > wording as much as possible. > > best, > > izumi > > --------------------- > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will > comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private > Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no > official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if > the above mentioned is indeed true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, > would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is > apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC > resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive > manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be > communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to > identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present > process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this > important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the > Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > letter and spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF > consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working > Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character > and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and > should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of > the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the > private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in > the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive > manner” > > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not > in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil > society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from > the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to > the continued development and success of building the people-centered > Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we > do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some > additional time. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have > acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible > consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole > ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a > unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all > stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that > our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear > that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to > the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been > built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful > multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, > and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this > crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Dec 9 09:25:30 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:25:30 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D00E6DA.3040107@cafonso.ca> I agree as well. --c.a. On 12/09/2010 12:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/12/2010, at 8:53 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >> >> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC >> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > This all happened while I was asleep, but I agree we should sign and send immediately, and I think it supersedes our earlier draft as IGC that the coordinators and CSTD nominees had been working on. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 09:32:16 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:32:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In light of this discussion did anyone notice this report? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558 I thought it was particularly interesting in our world of smoke and mirrors and dust in the air how effectively sleight of hand had directed all attention away from the fact that somewhere at the base of the issue the US attempts to keep information secret had failed. The US leaked before Wikileaks leaked. Deirdre On 9 December 2010 10:17, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Milton wrote a nice piece for the IGP blog on the Wikileaks issue....check > out the newslettter we sent around yesterday. The Wikileaks thing from an > IGC perspective is not about 'supporting' WikiLeaks, but about supporting > open, transparent, governance of...critical Internet resources or however we > phrase it for a broader audience to significantly raise the profile of IGC. > > So yeah I agree timing is good to play off Wikileaks to highlight our > broader concerns, highlighted by Wikileaks and the CSTD shenanigans. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] > On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:56 AM > To: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC > > >Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we > disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with > Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically > developed to guide public and private responses in future similar > circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the > latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would > also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et > al. > > Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such as > those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for.... > > While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be > critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such > guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of un co-ordinated > approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols. > > > > ________________________________ > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800 > To: , Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC > > On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to > political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let > alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and > Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet. > > and Twitter. > > I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! > > Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we > disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with > Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically > developed to guide public and private responses in future similar > circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the > latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would > also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et > al. > > -- > 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 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 9 09:35:35 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:35:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2C@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Yes the original 'problem' from a USG viewpoint is US State Dept's archaic practices for handling of sensitive information, which Private Manning apparently was helpfully (? ; ) trying to bring to USG's attention, as I understand his alleged supposed motivations. That aspect could be included somehow in the IGC statement, but getting into specifics there is hard since it is just allegations and rumors at this point. And not really our main point. ________________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 9:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In light of this discussion did anyone notice this report? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558 I thought it was particularly interesting in our world of smoke and mirrors and dust in the air how effectively sleight of hand had directed all attention away from the fact that somewhere at the base of the issue the US attempts to keep information secret had failed. The US leaked before Wikileaks leaked. Deirdre On 9 December 2010 10:17, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Milton wrote a nice piece for the IGP blog on the Wikileaks issue....check out the newslettter we sent around yesterday. The Wikileaks thing from an IGC perspective is not about 'supporting' WikiLeaks, but about supporting open, transparent, governance of...critical Internet resources or however we phrase it for a broader audience to significantly raise the profile of IGC. So yeah I agree timing is good to play off Wikileaks to highlight our broader concerns, highlighted by Wikileaks and the CSTD shenanigans. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:56 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC >Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al. Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for.... While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of un co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800 To: >, Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet. and Twitter. I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al. -- 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 -- “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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Dec 9 09:59:44 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:59:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <72FB85C9-3B90-4CAF-BE11-9A7549945F01@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Me too. Bill On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it. > > jeanette > > Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: >> Dear list, >> >> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >> >> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >> >> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC >> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >> >> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >> but in this >> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >> >> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. >> >> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >> >> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >> needed and important for us. >> >> I hope you understand and support this. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> ------------------ >> DRAFT >> >> To Frederic Riehl >> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >> >> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision >> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >> will be composed exclusively of member states. >> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >> the creation of the IGF itself: >> >> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >> proposals for action… >> >> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s >> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >> September 2010. >> >> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >> acceptable. >> >> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums”. >> >> ------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.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 caffsouza at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 10:19:12 2010 From: caffsouza at gmail.com (Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:19:12 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <72FB85C9-3B90-4CAF-BE11-9A7549945F01@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> <72FB85C9-3B90-4CAF-BE11-9A7549945F01@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Same here. Thanks for the initiative. Best, Carlos Affonso Vice-Coordenador Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS) Escola de Direito da Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) caf at fgv.br 2010/12/9 Drake William > Hi > > Me too. > > Bill > > > On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I > support that the IGC signs it. > > > > jeanette > > > > Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: > >> Dear list, > >> > >> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > >> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > >> > >> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had > on > >> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > >> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > >> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > >> ICANN, ccNSO etc. > >> > >> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and > asking IGC > >> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > >> > >> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > >> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > >> but in this > >> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > >> > >> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > >> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > >> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint > one. > >> > >> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > >> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > >> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > >> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > >> > >> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > >> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > >> needed and important for us. > >> > >> I hope you understand and support this. > >> > >> best, > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> ------------------ > >> DRAFT > >> > >> To Frederic Riehl > >> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > >> > >> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > >> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > >> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > >> will be composed exclusively of member states. > >> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > >> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > >> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > >> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > >> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > >> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > >> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > >> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > >> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > >> the creation of the IGF itself: > >> > >> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > >> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > >> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > >> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > >> proposals for action… > >> > >> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > >> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > >> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > >> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > >> September 2010. > >> > >> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > >> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > >> acceptable. > >> > >> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > >> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > >> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > >> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > >> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > >> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > >> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > >> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > >> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > >> international organizations and forums”. > >> > >> ------------------ > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.williamdrake.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 HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 10:46:22 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:46:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net> References: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM, parminder wrote: > > The WikiLeak case in indeed a watershed IG event, agreed. in the manner the US gov > has exercised extra-legal authority, using its political and economic might > in a rather comprehensive manner,  to control global traffic flows on the > Internet. I would say "re-routed", not controlled. You can still resolve wikileaks.org. What used to be one webserver is now nearly 1000. So what the USG has done ( inadvertently ) is actually enabled the spread and distribution of the material.....Ironic innit? Of course, the DDOS attacks that have made them switch to mirrors is not done by the USG, but by script-kiddies. > > Will IGC want to issue a statement on this? Who will we issue such a statement to? > > This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, > informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights, is > urgently required. The same process would be the place for redress in case > of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present case. I just don't have the same faith that you seem to have that governments will sign on to give up sovereignty on these issues. We all saw the fights at WSIS, and that wasn't even binding! Will the Pakistanis agree that they can't censor youtube? Will the Chinese agree to dismantle the Great Firewall? Will the USA stop taking seizing domains due to alleged IP violations? I think not on all of the above. > > If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, > perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go beyond just > making process related statements, which often attract the cynical judgment Cynical or realistic? > that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear > connections to real substantive global IG issues. > I've never said self-serving. I think the headline is misleading, and follows the same logic those in IGC use when they want to give too much power to governments. Why suggest to them that they can "shut down the net", we should know by now that they cannot (well, except for North Korea). -- 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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Dec 9 10:48:02 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:48:02 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0C780472@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> In full support. Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 Fax: +43/316/380/9455 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. Dezember 2010 01:53 An: Governance List Betreff: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action. We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring "the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums". ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Thu Dec 9 11:12:41 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:12:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27E120F8-2ED9-41BA-937A-313284BC3CB2@gmail.com> I support immediate signing and forwarding....! Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 9 Dec 2010, at 05:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums”. > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Dec 9 11:48:12 2010 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:48:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: References: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D01084C.1070902@gn.apc.org> hi in the manner the US gov >> has exercised extra-legal authority, using its political and economic might >> in a rather comprehensive manner, to control global traffic flows on the >> Internet. > > I would say "re-routed", not controlled. You can still resolve > wikileaks.org. What used to be one webserver is now nearly 1000. So > what the USG has done ( inadvertently ) is actually enabled the spread > and distribution of the material.....Ironic innit? it is, but this is demonstrates the power of networks of bodies willing to mirror, and, in our experience (APC) where we have run mirroring initiatives to support threatened content, this is precisely what happened, every time.. in fact, where there was an opportunity to respond to a demand for take down, this possibility/likelihood was noted, by way of discouraging the initiator of the takedown request - it depends of course, on the power of the initiator (and whether the stakes are high enough) karen > Of course, the DDOS attacks that have made them switch to mirrors is > not done by the USG, but by script-kiddies. > > >> >> Will IGC want to issue a statement on this? > > > Who will we issue such a statement to? > > >> >> This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, >> informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights, is >> urgently required. The same process would be the place for redress in case >> of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present case. > > I just don't have the same faith that you seem to have that > governments will sign on to give up sovereignty on these issues. > We all saw the fights at WSIS, and that wasn't even binding! > Will the Pakistanis agree that they can't censor youtube? Will the > Chinese agree to dismantle the Great Firewall? Will the USA stop > taking seizing domains due to alleged IP violations? I think not on > all of the above. > >> >> If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, >> perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go beyond just >> making process related statements, which often attract the cynical judgment > > > Cynical or realistic? > >> that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear >> connections to real substantive global IG issues. >> > > I've never said self-serving. > > I think the headline is misleading, and follows the same logic those > in IGC use when they want to give too much power to governments. Why > suggest to them that they can "shut down the net", we should know by > now that they cannot (well, except for North Korea). > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 12:08:56 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:08:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement In-Reply-To: <9eZkD$KMYJANFAoS@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> <9eZkD$KMYJANFAoS@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message <9eZkD$KMYJANFAoS at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 08:40:44 on Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >>Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the CSTD >>session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD model of [in >>the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and WSIS accredited >>entities. > >"Information for Participants" now published reflects this. Meeting of 15-17th >December, where final day is the IGF Improvement WG. Thomas Schneider (assistant to WG Chair) has confirmed in IGF session in Cartagena that meeting of the 17th December is open to members and WSIS accredited entities, who can also speak; but subsequent meetings likely to be closed. He says this is due to a CSTD decision on 6th December, which the WG Chair has to abide with. Later... he's encouraging "everyone" to turn up and make their views heard, and also to engage with their governments. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 9 12:38:35 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:38:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0C780472@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> References: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0C780472@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108E057@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I support the letter. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:48 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU > Subject: AW: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG > composition only by governments > > In full support. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek > Institute for International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > A-8010 Graz > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von > Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. Dezember 2010 01:53 > An: Governance List > Betreff: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG > composition only by governments > > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had > on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and > asking IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint > one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action. > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring "the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums". > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 pbekono at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 12:39:41 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:39:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <27E120F8-2ED9-41BA-937A-313284BC3CB2@gmail.com> References: <27E120F8-2ED9-41BA-937A-313284BC3CB2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the prompt reaction Izumi. I agree ~Pascal 2010/12/9, Fouad Bajwa : > I support immediate signing and forwarding....! > > Fouad Bajwa > sent using my iPad > > On 9 Dec 2010, at 05:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear list, >> >> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. >> >> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >> ICANN, ccNSO etc. >> >> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking >> IGC >> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. >> >> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >> but in this >> special case, we may not have that luxury of time. >> >> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. >> >> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. >> >> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >> needed and important for us. >> >> I hope you understand and support this. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> ------------------ >> DRAFT >> >> To Frederic Riehl >> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD >> >> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision >> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >> will be composed exclusively of member states. >> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >> the creation of the IGF itself: >> >> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >> proposals for action… >> >> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s >> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >> September 2010. >> >> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >> acceptable. >> >> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >> international organizations and forums”. >> >> ------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 shailam at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 13:46:13 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:46:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758ADD33@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758ADD33@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: <959312.9810.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi I support this letter Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! From: Lisa Horner To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Shahzad Ahmad Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 4:57:46 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments From me too. Thanks! Lisa From:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Shahzad Ahmad Sent: 09 December 2010 12:40 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Total support Izumi. Best wishes Shahzad From:valeriabet at gmail.com [mailto:valeriabet at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Valeria Betancourt Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:22 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear Izumi, APC supports that IGC signs the letter. Best, Valeria 2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it. jeanette Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU: >Dear list, > >The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments >is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > >I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on >Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same >concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena >meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, >ICANN, ccNSO etc. > >Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC >to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > >I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, >please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, >but in this >special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > >I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now >it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is >to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > >I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. >We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting >if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and >read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > >Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think >acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently >needed and important for us. > >I hope you understand and support this. > >best, > >izumi > >------------------ >DRAFT > >To Frederic Riehl >Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > >We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision >that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution >(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) >will be composed exclusively of member states. >This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD >in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, >asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, >compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other >stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". >These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of >Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very >successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately >the creation of the IGF itself: > >We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working >group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that >ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of >governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >international organizations and forums, to investigate and make >proposals for action… > >We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would >be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the >multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s >recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 >September 2010. > >The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the >letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not >acceptable. > >In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a >decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but >rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as >instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. >The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the >request made to her. In light of that and the above information we >urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an >appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS >formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of >governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing >and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and >international organizations and forums”. > >------------------ >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Thu Dec 9 13:57:20 2010 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 21:57:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <959312.9810.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758ADD33@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <959312.9810.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <218131291921040@web29.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 9 14:36:36 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:36:36 -0800 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice Message-ID: I'm at this point indifferent as to the need for an IGC statement on Wikileaks, in part for the reasons that McTim mentions below i.e. to whom would such a statement be addressed. On the other hand, precisely because of McTim's answer to the question I think we should be focussing all of our efforts on producing the broad statement of principles re: IG which Parminder and others have been proposing. If anything the current spreading chaos and unpredictability around Wikileaks has meant that the need for such an overarching global IG framework has probably become very very clear to many of the dominant Internet players. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:46 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Will IGC want to issue a statement on this? Who will we issue such a statement to? > > This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, > informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human > rights, is urgently required. The same process would be the place for > redress in case of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present > case. I just don't have the same faith that you seem to have that governments will sign on to give up sovereignty on these issues. We all saw the fights at WSIS, and that wasn't even binding! Will the Pakistanis agree that they can't censor youtube? Will the Chinese agree to dismantle the Great Firewall? Will the USA stop taking seizing domains due to alleged IP violations? I think not on all of the above. > > If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, > perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go > beyond just making process related statements, which often attract the > cynical judgment Cynical or realistic? > that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear > connections to real substantive global IG issues. > I've never said self-serving. I think the headline is misleading, and follows the same logic those in IGC use when they want to give too much power to governments. Why suggest to them that they can "shut down the net", we should know by now that they cannot (well, except for North Korea). -- 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 katitza at eff.org Thu Dec 9 14:57:33 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:57:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <63d3e686b4e53ba35f58cf364feda245@eff.org> Hi Twitter is not blocking. They change they algorithm many time ago. A good tech and data analysis explanation is available here: #WikiLeaks & Twitter Trending Topics: Manual Interference or Algorithms as Usual? http://opennet.net/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-twitter-trending-topics-manual-interference-or-algorithms-usual "the problem with claiming that Twitter is blacklisting any particular term ultimately comes down to a likely misunderstanding of the mechanics behind trending terms. Volume alone does not dictate what is trending - if that were the case, barring any stop-word list, we would see terms like “lol” and “Bieber” constantly trending, and, ultimately, the lack of churn in trending topics would make them a useless feature on the site. For this reason, the likely major component is the velocity of volume rather than volume itself (the algorithm itself is not publicly known)." ".... perhaps the Wikileaks story should have been trending, and perhaps the algorithm is due for some form of an overhaul to balance the needs of Twitter the company and Twitter the communications platform. The situation, then, is not whether or not Wikileaks is being discriminated against, but whether or not we value that algorithmic discrimination as users." On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to > political pressure, although there is no legal action against > wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and > presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on > the side of a free Internet. > > and Twitter. > > I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! > > Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we > disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing > with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be > democratically developed to guide public and private responses in > future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, > I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core > competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those > of free speech groups et al. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 16:08:16 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:08:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: <63d3e686b4e53ba35f58cf364feda245@eff.org> References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> <63d3e686b4e53ba35f58cf364feda245@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D014540.5060502@cafonso.ca> Sorry, Katitza, it does not explain it. It is trending massively by velocity and volume. It is clear there is more than an algorithm intervening. --c.a. On 12/09/2010 05:57 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi > > Twitter is not blocking. They change they algorithm many time ago. A > good tech and data analysis explanation is available here: > > #WikiLeaks& Twitter Trending Topics: Manual Interference or Algorithms > as Usual? > http://opennet.net/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-twitter-trending-topics-manual-interference-or-algorithms-usual > > "the problem with claiming that Twitter is blacklisting any particular > term ultimately comes down to a likely misunderstanding of the mechanics > behind trending terms. Volume alone does not dictate what is trending - > if that were the case, barring any stop-word list, we would see terms > like “lol” and “Bieber” constantly trending, and, ultimately, the lack > of churn in trending topics would make them a useless feature on the > site. For this reason, the likely major component is the velocity of > volume rather than volume itself (the algorithm itself is not publicly > known)." > > ".... perhaps the Wikileaks story should have been trending, and > perhaps the algorithm is due for some form of an overhaul to balance the > needs of Twitter the company and Twitter the communications platform. > The situation, then, is not whether or not Wikileaks is being > discriminated against, but whether or not we value that algorithmic > discrimination as users." > > > > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: >> On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to >> political pressure, although there is no legal action against >> wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and >> presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on >> the side of a free Internet. >> >> and Twitter. >> >> I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! >> >> Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we >> disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing >> with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >> democratically developed to guide public and private responses in >> future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, >> I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core >> competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those >> of free speech groups et al. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 katitza at eff.org Thu Dec 9 16:19:35 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:19:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC In-Reply-To: <4D014540.5060502@cafonso.ca> References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org> <63d3e686b4e53ba35f58cf364feda245@eff.org> <4D014540.5060502@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <581eaa45c5b08a290010d3b0445f056f@eff.org> Twitter made a blog post yesterday addressing this very issue: . I sent you the analysis from the Open Net Initiative who works on documenting Internet Censorship. If you have data that shows that Twitter is being quashing the #wikileaks hashtag, please feel free to send it to me and our tech team might be very interested in taking a look at it. We can discuss is their algorithm actually is good or not... BTW, twitter is working fine. It is actually one of the key mediums we have to spread the word of our messages. It will be silly to boycott twitter as some proposals on twitter said. It will only harm us.. this is my personal opinion... Best, Katitza On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:08:16 -0200, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Sorry, Katitza, it does not explain it. It is trending massively by > velocity and volume. It is clear there is more than an algorithm > intervening. > > --c.a. > > On 12/09/2010 05:57 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Hi >> >> Twitter is not blocking. They change they algorithm many time ago. A >> good tech and data analysis explanation is available here: >> >> #WikiLeaks& Twitter Trending Topics: Manual Interference or Algorithms >> as Usual? >> http://opennet.net/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-twitter-trending-topics-manual-interference-or-algorithms-usual >> >> "the problem with claiming that Twitter is blacklisting any particular >> term ultimately comes down to a likely misunderstanding of the mechanics >> behind trending terms. Volume alone does not dictate what is trending - >> if that were the case, barring any stop-word list, we would see terms >> like “lol” and “Bieber” constantly trending, and, ultimately, the lack >> of churn in trending topics would make them a useless feature on the >> site. For this reason, the likely major component is the velocity of >> volume rather than volume itself (the algorithm itself is not publicly >> known)." >> >> ".... perhaps the Wikileaks story should have been trending, and >> perhaps the algorithm is due for some form of an overhaul to balance the >> needs of Twitter the company and Twitter the communications platform. >> The situation, then, is not whether or not Wikileaks is being >> discriminated against, but whether or not we value that algorithmic >> discrimination as users." >> >> >> >> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm >> wrote: >>> On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to >>> political pressure, although there is no legal action against >>> wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and >>> presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on >>> the side of a free Internet. >>> >>> and Twitter. >>> >>> I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! >>> >>> Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we >>> disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing >>> with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >>> democratically developed to guide public and private responses in >>> future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, >>> I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core >>> competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those >>> of free speech groups et al. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 9 17:27:16 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:27:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Agreed re leveraging this as talking point to draw attention to need for broader - mutlistakeholder - IG framework. Re misleading headlines, well that's how the media game is played, and I for one don't have a problem with IGC playing that game too - for a good cause. The bogeyman of 'governments taking over' or 'UN taking over' Internet is also shown to be imaginary by the current case, we can make that point too. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 2:36 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: FW: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice I'm at this point indifferent as to the need for an IGC statement on Wikileaks, in part for the reasons that McTim mentions below i.e. to whom would such a statement be addressed. On the other hand, precisely because of McTim's answer to the question I think we should be focussing all of our efforts on producing the broad statement of principles re: IG which Parminder and others have been proposing. If anything the current spreading chaos and unpredictability around Wikileaks has meant that the need for such an overarching global IG framework has probably become very very clear to many of the dominant Internet players. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:46 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Will IGC want to issue a statement on this? Who will we issue such a statement to? > > This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, > informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human > rights, is urgently required. The same process would be the place for > redress in case of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present > case. I just don't have the same faith that you seem to have that governments will sign on to give up sovereignty on these issues. We all saw the fights at WSIS, and that wasn't even binding! Will the Pakistanis agree that they can't censor youtube? Will the Chinese agree to dismantle the Great Firewall? Will the USA stop taking seizing domains due to alleged IP violations? I think not on all of the above. > > If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, > perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go > beyond just making process related statements, which often attract the > cynical judgment Cynical or realistic? > that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear > connections to real substantive global IG issues. > I've never said self-serving. I think the headline is misleading, and follows the same logic those in IGC use when they want to give too much power to governments. Why suggest to them that they can "shut down the net", we should know by now that they cannot (well, except for North Korea). -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 9 18:00:02 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:00:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87151600AFB1@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> I support this text. Carlton Samuels From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM To: Governance List Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments Dear list, The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, ICANN, ccNSO etc. Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, but in this special case, we may not have that luxury of time. I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently needed and important for us. I hope you understand and support this. best, izumi ------------------ DRAFT To Frederic Riehl Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action... We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not acceptable. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring "the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums". ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3305 - Release Date: 12/09/10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Dec 9 19:06:32 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:06:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87151600AFB1@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87151600AFB1@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you for the unanimous support to the joint letter. Having seen that I told ISOC, ICC and others that IGC support it and about less than 2 hours ago, while I was still in bed, they have sent the letter to Mr. Frederic Riehl, Vice Chair of CSTD. Quite a few organizations have singed it already and it is on the increase. I will forward the one already sent. They also plan to send 2nd letter, to address to the Madam Chair of CSTD, Sherry Ayittey, too. I will also forward the text. Now, we also have our own draft text, I like to also send it later today, before Geneva working hours end. I will also post the current text so that you can further support it. Many thanks, izumi 2010/12/10 SAMUELS,Carlton A : > I support this text. > > > > Carlton Samuels > > > > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi > AIZU > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM > To: Governance List > Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG > composition only by governments > > > > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking > IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums”. > > ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Dec 9 19:07:41 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:07:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership In-Reply-To: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> References: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> Message-ID: This is the letter sent to Frederic. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill Graham Date: 2010/12/10 Subject: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership To: Frédéric Riehl To:  Mr. Frédéric Riehl, Vice Chair, Commission on Science and Technology for Development  (frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch CC:  H.E. Ms. Sherry Ayittey, Chair, Commission on Science and Technology for Development (c/o Mongi Hamdi: mongi.hamdi at unctad.org) We are surprised and deeply concerned about the decision taken by an extraordinary meeting of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau on Monday.  As we understand it, the meeting decided that the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), will be composed exclusively of member states. This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, invites “the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action… We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010, and we were dismayed to learn that would not be the case. The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the report and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore disappointing. In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. Because little time remains before the 17 December meeting, we respectfully request that you respond at your earliest possible convenience, preferably by 14 December, so that we may make plans to participate in the Working Group meeting if appropriate. Sincerely yours, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) http://www.apnic.net/ Contact: German Valdez (german at apnic.net) Association for Competitive Technology http://actonline.org/ Contact: Jonathan Zuck (jzuck at actonline.org) Australian Domain Name Administration (AuDA) http://www.auda.org.au/ Contact: Chris Disspain (ceo at auda.org.au) East African Internet Governance Forum http://www.eaigf.or.ke/ Contact: Lillian Nalwoga (Lillian at cipesa.org) or Alice Munyua (alice at apc.org) International Chamber of Commerce - Business Action to Support the Information Society http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/ Contact: Ayesha Hassan (ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/ Contact: Baher Esmat (baher.esmat at icann.org) Internet Governance Caucus http://www.igcaucus.org/ Contacts: Izumi Aizu (iza at anr.org) or Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) Internet Society http://www.isoc.org/ Contact: Bill Graham (graham at isoc.org) NetChoice http://www.netchoice.org/ Contact: Steve del Bianco (sdelbianco at netchoice.org) Nominet http://www.nominet.org.uk/ Contact: Lesley Cowley (lesley.cowley at nominet.org.uk) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 9 19:27:28 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:27:28 -0600 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Text is clear enough for me to agree for the intended purpose. Thanks! Regards, Charity On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, > NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. > > As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG > for both substance and the tone/style. > > I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end > of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is > a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and > b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier > > Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final > wording as much as possible. > > best, > > izumi > > --------------------- > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will > comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private > Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no > official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if > the above mentioned is indeed true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, > would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is > apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC > resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive > manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be > communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to > identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present > process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this > important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the > Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > letter and spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF > consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working > Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character > and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and > should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of > the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the > private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in > the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive > manner” > * > > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not > in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil > society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from > the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to > the continued development and success of building the people-centered > Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we > do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some > additional time. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have > acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible > consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole > ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a > unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all > stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that > our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear > that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to > the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been > built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful > multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, > and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this > crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Dec 9 19:30:06 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:30:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, There have been minor edit to the text. "We are unable to identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present process of setting up the Working Group. " has been changed to "We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of “openness and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF process. " Also, as joint letter was already sent, this letter will be our own. However, it would be nice if some Civil Society Organizations either endorse this or send a separate letter to CSTD in the same spirit. IF we see good support, I would like to send it later today, 5 pm CET, which is about midnight in Tokyo. I will include the names of CS organizations if you indicate that and put contact person info. If it takes time, we can add more and bring and/or voice them to the Dec 14 NYC and Dec 17 Geneva CSTD meetings. Thank you, izumi ------------------------------ Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey Chairperson UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, Vice Chairperson, UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed true. In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of “openness and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF process. The overall approach to this important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and spirit. The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. As the Chair’s Summary says: It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive manner” In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will introduce a degree of delay in the overall process. We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to date acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. It is our feeling that this action might negatively impact the current ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner. We further ask that an approach be pursued that is satisfactory to all stakeholders. We hope that we may have misunderstood the signficance of this decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. -- Signed by: The Internet Governance Caucus Many more to join ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 9 20:19:13 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:19:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] EFF: Information is the Antidote to Fear: Wikileaks, the Law, and You Message-ID: <4D018011.3060600@eff.org> EFF: Information is the Antidote to Fear: Wikileaks, the Law, and You https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-fear-wikileaks-law-and-you When it comes to Wikileaks, there's a lot of fear out there on the Internet right now. Between the federal criminal investigation into Wikileaks, Senator Joe Lieberman's calls for companies to stop providing support for Wikileaks and his suggestion that the New York Times itself should be criminally investigated, Senator Dianne Feinstein's recent Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for prosecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and even the suggestion by some that he should be assassinated , a lot of people are scared and confused. Will I break the law if I host or mirror the US diplomatic cables that have been published by Wikileaks? If I view or download them? If I write a news story based on them? These are just a few of the questions we've been getting here at EFF, particularly in light of many US companies' apparent fear to do any business with Wikileaks (with a few notable exceptions ). We unfortunately don't have the capacity to offer individualized legal advice to everyone who contacts us. What we can do, however, is talk about EFF's own policy position: we agree with other legal commentators who have warned that a prosecution of Assange, much less of other readers or publishers of the cables, would face serious First Amendment hurdles ([1 ], [2 ]) and would be "extremely dangerous" to free speech rights. Along with our friends at the ACLU , "We're deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea." Even better than commentary, we can also provide legal /information/ on this complicated issue, and today we have for you some high quality legal information from an expert and objective source: Congress' own research service, CRS . The job of this non-partisan legal office is to provide objective, balanced memos to Congress on important legal issues, free from the often hysteric hyperbole of other government officials. And thanks to Secrecy News , we have a copy of CRS' latest memo on the Wikileaks controversy , a report entitled "Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information" and dated this Monday, December 6. Like this blog post itself, the CRS memo isn't legal advice. But it is a comprehensive discussion of the laws under which the Wikileaks publishers --- or anyone else who obtains or publishes the documents, be it you or the New York Times --- might be prosecuted and the First Amendment problems that such a prosecution would likely raise. Notably, the fine lawyers at CRS recognize a simple fact that statements from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Senators, the State Department and others have glossed over: a prosecution against someone who isn't subject to the secrecy obligations of a federal employee or contractor, based only on that person's publication of classified information that was received innocently, would be absolutely unprecedented and would likely pose serious First Amendment problems. As the summary page of the 21-page memo succinctly states, This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply [to dissemination of classified documents], but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and *we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it*. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship. The report proceeds to discuss the Espionage Act of 1917 and a number of other potentially applicable statutes, followed by an extended discussion (at pp. 14-20) of how the Supreme Court's First Amendment decisions --- and in particular the Pentagon Papers case --- could complicate such a prosecution. For anyone interested in or concerned about the legality of publishing the Wikileaks documents and the legal and political challenges to a successful prosecution, this CRS memo is an absolute must-read. Hopefully, this information will help counter much of the fear that our government's so-called "war" against Wikileaks has generated. Meanwhile, we will continue our effort to oppose online censorship and provide additional news and commentary on the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, which is shaping up to be the first great free speech battle of the 21st century. We hope you'll join us in the fight. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 20:44:24 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:14:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0185F8.9090208@itforchange.net> Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The statement is fully supported by myself but it would still be wise > to request Parminder for more thoughts and Miguel to help us with the > language of the statement! > > > Fouad, I did collaborate with co-coordinators on framing the letter, though yes it can be improved. thanks. parminder > Best > > Fouad > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear list, >> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, >> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. >> >> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG >> for both substance and the tone/style. >> >> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end >> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is >> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and >> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier >> >> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final >> wording as much as possible. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> --------------------- >> >> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey >> Chairperson >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> >> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, >> Vice Chairperson, >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> >> >> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, >> >> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. >> >> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will >> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private >> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no >> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if >> the above mentioned is indeed true. >> >> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, >> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is >> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC >> resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive >> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be >> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to >> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present >> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this >> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the >> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in >> letter and spirit. >> >> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF >> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working >> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. >> >> As the Chair’s Summary says: >> It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character >> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and >> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of >> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. >> >> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was >> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of >> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the >> private sector. >> >> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model >> of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in >> the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive >> manner” >> >> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not >> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil >> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from >> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to >> the continued development and success of building the people-centered >> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles >> including that "The international management of the Internet should be >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >> organizations.” >> >> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we >> do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some >> additional time. >> >> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have >> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible >> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole >> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a >> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all >> stakeholders. >> >> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that >> our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear >> that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to >> the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been >> built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful >> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, >> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this >> crucial time. >> >> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 20:45:45 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:15:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D018649.2050500@itforchange.net> Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > There have been minor edit to the text. > > "We are unable to identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying > principles of the present process of setting up the Working Group. " > has been changed to > > "We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of “openness > and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF process. " > > Also, as joint letter was already sent, this letter will be our own. > However, it would be nice if some Civil Society Organizations either endorse > this or send a separate letter to CSTD in the same spirit. > > IF we see good support, I would like to send it later today, 5 pm CET, > which is about > midnight in Tokyo. I will include the names of CS organizations if you > indicate that > and put contact person info. IT for change is happy to endorse, pl add my name as contact person. thanks. parminder > If it takes time, we can add more and > bring and/or voice > them to the Dec 14 NYC and Dec 17 Geneva CSTD meetings. > > Thank you, > > izumi > > ------------------------------ > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF > will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil > Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be > included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we > first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed > true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the > undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that > decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the > concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an > ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is > imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly > resolution. We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of > “openness and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF > process. The overall approach to this important issue related to > Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras > 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and > spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius > IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the > Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and > work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > > It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder > character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been > successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities > and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and > the private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the > model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was > set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open > and inclusive manner” > > > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is > not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders > (civil society, business and Internet technical community) will be > excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental > stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of > building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs > counter to WSIS principles including that "The international > management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and > democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, > but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will > introduce a degree of delay in the overall process. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to > date acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the > possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. It > is our feeling that this action might negatively impact the current > ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a > unique multistakeholder manner. We further ask that an approach be > pursued that is satisfactory to all stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the signficance of this > decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we > are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to > the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of > the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders > since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will > make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to > further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > -- > > Signed by: > > The Internet Governance Caucus > Many more to join > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 9 21:00:48 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:48 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: <4D018649.2050500@itforchange.net> References: <4D018649.2050500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The Center for Technology and Society of FGV - Brazil also supports it. I can be the contact person. On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:45 PM, parminder wrote: > > > Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear list, > > There have been minor edit to the text. > > "We are unable to identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying > principles of the present process of setting up the Working Group. " > has been changed to > > "We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of “openness > and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF process. " > > Also, as joint letter was already sent, this letter will be our own. > However, it would be nice if some Civil Society Organizations either endorse > this or send a separate letter to CSTD in the same spirit. > > IF we see good support, I would like to send it later today, 5 pm CET, > which is about > midnight in Tokyo. I will include the names of CS organizations if you > indicate that > and put contact person info. > > IT for change is happy to endorse, pl add my name as contact person. > thanks. parminder > > If it takes time, we can add more and > bring and/or voice > them to the Dec 14 NYC and Dec 17 Geneva CSTD meetings. > > Thank you, > > izumi > > ------------------------------ > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF > will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil > Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be > included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we > first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed > true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the > undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that > decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the > concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an > ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is > imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly > resolution. We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of > “openness and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF > process. The overall approach to this important issue related to > Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras > 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and > spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius > IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the > Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and > work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > > It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder > character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been > successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities > and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and > the private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the > model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was > set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open > and inclusive manner” > > > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is > not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders > (civil society, business and Internet technical community) will be > excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental > stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of > building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs > counter to WSIS principles including that "The international > management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and > democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private > sector, civil society and international organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, > but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will > introduce a degree of delay in the overall process. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to > date acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the > possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. It > is our feeling that this action might negatively impact the current > ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a > unique multistakeholder manner. We further ask that an approach be > pursued that is satisfactory to all stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the signficance of this > decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we > are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to > the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of > the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders > since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will > make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to > further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > -- > > Signed by: > > The Internet Governance Caucus > Many more to join > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 9 21:25:42 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:25:42 +0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership References: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> Message-ID: <68A503E7-9719-41BF-97B0-70CB527A6800@ciroap.org> Here is the final text of the joint letter which was sent a few hours ago, and is also now on our Web site at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/48. Begin forwarded message: > To: Mr. Frédéric Riehl, Vice Chair, Commission on Science and Technology for Development (frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch > > CC: H.E. Ms. Sherry Ayittey, Chair, Commission on Science and Technology for Development (c/o Mongi Hamdi: mongi.hamdi at unctad.org) > > We are surprised and deeply concerned about the decision taken by an extraordinary meeting of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau on Monday. As we understand it, the meeting decided that the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), mandated by resolution (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), will be composed exclusively of member states. > > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, invites “the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 September 2010, and we were dismayed to learn that would not be the case. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the report and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore disappointing. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the request made to her. In light of that and the above information we urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums”. > > Because little time remains before the 17 December meeting, we respectfully request that you respond at your earliest possible convenience, preferably by 14 December, so that we may make plans to participate in the Working Group meeting if appropriate. > > Sincerely yours, > > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) > http://www.apnic.net/ > Contact: German Valdez (german at apnic.net) > > Association for Competitive Technology > http://actonline.org/ > Contact: Jonathan Zuck (jzuck at actonline.org) > > Australian Domain Name Administration (AuDA) > http://www.auda.org.au/ > Contact: Chris Disspain (ceo at auda.org.au) > > East African Internet Governance Forum > http://www.eaigf.or.ke/ > Contact: Lillian Nalwoga (Lillian at cipesa.org) or Alice Munyua (alice at apc.org) > > International Chamber of Commerce - Business Action to Support the Information Society > http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/ > Contact: Ayesha Hassan (ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > http://www.icann.org/ > Contact: Baher Esmat (baher.esmat at icann.org) > > Internet Governance Caucus > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > Contacts: Izumi Aizu (iza at anr.org) or Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) > > Internet Society > http://www.isoc.org/ > Contact: Bill Graham (graham at isoc.org) > > NetChoice > http://www.netchoice.org/ > Contact: Steve del Bianco (sdelbianco at netchoice.org) > > Nominet > http://www.nominet.org.uk/ > Contact: Lesley Cowley (lesley.cowley at nominet.org.uk) > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 9 22:17:58 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:17:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8EA6EFA1-C729-479E-A526-DDE78776ECE5@ciroap.org> On 09/12/2010, at 2:36 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm at this point indifferent as to the need for an IGC statement on > Wikileaks, in part for the reasons that McTim mentions below i.e. to whom > would such a statement be addressed. As a press release it would be a good means of outreach, I think... does the outreach committee want to suggest a message about the IGC to include in such a release? > On the other hand, precisely because of McTim's answer to the question I > think we should be focussing all of our efforts on producing the broad > statement of principles re: IG which Parminder and others have been > proposing. I see a long-term Internet governance manifesto for the IGC as a good idea, and also something for the attention of one of our sub-committees, the strategy committee. Meanwhile, I will put together a narrower piece on Wikileaks, and send it around later today (work is very heavy for me at the moment, sorry I can't promise anything sooner). -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iza at anr.org Thu Dec 9 22:35:15 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:35:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: <8EA6EFA1-C729-479E-A526-DDE78776ECE5@ciroap.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <8EA6EFA1-C729-479E-A526-DDE78776ECE5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for putting extra work for the draft statement, and yes I also think it is important for IGC to issue that. In addition, I also think it is a good idea to come up with IGC statement of principle, in view of the extended IGF mandate and WSIS 2015. izumi 2010/12/10 Jeremy Malcolm : > On 09/12/2010, at 2:36 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> I'm at this point indifferent as to the need for an IGC statement on >> Wikileaks, in part for the reasons that McTim mentions below i.e. to whom >> would such a statement be addressed. > > As a press release it would be a good means of outreach, I think... does the outreach committee want to suggest a message about the IGC to include in such a release? > >> On the other hand, precisely because of McTim's answer to the question I >> think we should be focussing all of our efforts on producing the broad >> statement of principles re: IG which Parminder and others have been >> proposing. > > I see a long-term Internet governance manifesto for the IGC as a good idea, and also something for the attention of one of our sub-committees, the strategy committee. > > Meanwhile, I will put together a narrower piece on Wikileaks, and send it around later today (work is very heavy for me at the moment, sorry I can't promise anything sooner). > > -- > 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. > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 02:12:29 2010 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:12:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] The Hindu Edit: Shooting the messenger Message-ID: <4D01D2DD.6000506@gmail.com> [For all those who used the free speech argument in favour of de facto US control of the "root" not for political obsequiousness...] Editorial Published: December 9, 2010 23:30 IST | Updated: December 9, 2010 23:30 IST December 9, 2010 Shooting the messenger The high-profile arrest of besieged WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange could, in normal times, have been explained away as a bona fide step taken in furtherance of the due process of law. But these are extraordinary times, and the talented Editor-in-Chief of the whistle-blower website is the target of right wing and lunatic fringe politicians in America, some of whom want him assassinated. The charges against Mr. Assange will convince only the credulous. The accusations, by two women, of unlawful coercion, molestation, and rape in Sweden are highly suspect because of their timing and the way they have been pursued. All accounts of the sexual encounters suggest they were consensual and perhaps even planned. The charges were dropped after initial enquiry, but mysteriously revived. Across the Atlantic, of course, the campaign against WikiLeaks has been constructed around not concerns over women's rights but the website's sensational disclosures of highly embarrassing diplomatic cables. Repressive measures against WikiLeaks --- such as booting it from Amazon's cloud computing servers, cutting off Paypal, Visa and Mastercard payment gateways, denying it an Internet domain name, and freezing an account held by the website in a Swiss bank --- have been achieved through private, extra-judicial manoeuvres. This is what makes the arrest appear vindictive. The vicious campaign to silence WikiLeaks through distributed denial of service attacks and threats of prosecution for espionage in the United States have produced the opposite effect, by provoking supporters of the website to mount a counter-offensive against the companies involved. The net outcome is a cyberwar where militant responses to continued repression are guaranteed. Western governments, especially those involved in calamitous wars abroad, could then succumb to temptation and institute authoritarian controls on Internet access. Now that the WikiLeaks Founder is in detention, Washington should not be allowed to come up with tendentious arguments to get him extradited to be prosecuted for espionage. As Noam Chomsky and several other prominent American citizens have pointed out to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the rhetoric in the U.S. is increasingly violent and there are grave concerns about Mr. Assange's safety. At a broader level, the WikiLeaks challenge presents a clear choice to leaders and governments of western countries: to crack down on free speech in the name of official secrecy and national security or to make government more transparent and accountable. After all, tolerating what pleases you, or at least does not displease you strongly, is no big deal. How /l'affaire/ Assange gets resolved will be the acid test for free speech in countries that claim to be liberal democracies. Keywords: WikiLeaks founder , Julian Assange , arrest , espionage , U.S. secret cables , cablegate , whistle-blower , sexual scam The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 10 03:33:33 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:33:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This text is very well made and I accept Baudouin 2010/12/9 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, > NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. > > As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG > for both substance and the tone/style. > > I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end > of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is > a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and > b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier > > Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final > wording as much as possible. > > best, > > izumi > > --------------------- > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will > comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private > Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no > official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if > the above mentioned is indeed true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, > would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is > apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC > resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive > manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be > communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to > identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present > process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this > important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the > Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > letter and spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF > consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working > Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character > and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and > should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of > the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the > private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in > the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive > manner” > * > > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not > in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil > society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from > the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to > the continued development and success of building the people-centered > Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we > do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some > additional time. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have > acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible > consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole > ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a > unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all > stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that > our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear > that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to > the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been > built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful > multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, > and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this > crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 10 03:37:17 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:37:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree and give my consent to the signing of this text Baudouin 2010/12/9 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD. > > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US, > ICANN, ccNSO etc. > > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking > IGC > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final. > > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions, > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide, > but in this > special case, we may not have that luxury of time. > > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one. > > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments. > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York. > > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently > needed and important for us. > > I hope you understand and support this. > > best, > > izumi > > ------------------ > DRAFT > > To Frederic Riehl > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD > > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) > will be composed exclusively of member states. > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below, > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek, > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda". > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately > the creation of the IGF itself: > > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make > proposals for action… > > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16 > September 2010. > > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not > acceptable. > > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution. > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of > governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and > international organizations and forums”. > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 10 06:08:50 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:08:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101210110934.00D5D4CE77@npogroups.org> In agreement with the texts and support the letter. Hakikur At 08:33 AM 12/10/2010, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >This text is very well made and I accept > >Baudouin > > > >2010/12/9 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> >Dear list, >Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC, >NOT the joint one which I sent earlier. > >As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG >for both substance and the tone/style. > >I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end >of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is >a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and >b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier > >Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final >wording as much as possible. > >best, > >izumi > >--------------------- > >Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey >Chairperson >UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > >His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, >Vice Chairperson, >UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > >Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > >Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > >We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF >will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil >Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be >included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we >first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed true. > >In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the >undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that >decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by >the concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group >in an 'open and inclusive manner'. We understand that the same >mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General >Assembly resolution. We are unable to identify "openness and >inclusion" as underlying principles of the present process of >setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this important >issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the >Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, >both in letter and spirit. > >The process also clearly goes against the Chair's Summary of Vilnius >IGF consultation and the Chair's tentative road map indicates that >the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, >modality and work method. > >As the Chair's Summary says: >It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder >character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been >successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities >and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > >Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it >was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced >number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil >society and the private sector. > >A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair's suggestion to use >the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), >which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS >"in an open and inclusive manner" > >In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition >is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental >stakeholders (civil society, business and Internet technical >community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. >Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued >development and success of building the people-centered Information >Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including >that "The international management of the Internet should be >multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement >of governments, the private sector, civil society and international >organizations." > >We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, >but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will >require some additional time. > >We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we >have acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the >possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to >the whole ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been >evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach >satisfactory to all stakeholders. > >We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision >and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not >mistaken, we fear that the CSTD's decision will lead not to the >improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of >the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders >since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will >make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to >further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. > >We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > >Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 10 07:03:20 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:03:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks Message-ID: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> I have put together a draft statement on Wikileaks for discussion. I think it reads more like a blog post or an op-ed, but perhaps that's not a bad thing - we could look to publish it as one, either in a newspaper or a high-profile online forum like CircleID (and cross-post widely). For some time now, the coordinators have been looking for a more effective way for the caucus to collaborate on the drafting of statements. Until now this has been done by posting the statement to the list, receiving comments, and re-posting an updated version every few days. Sometimes emails cross, and sometimes comments are missed. We want to find a better way. My experiment with a new system to supplement the mailing list for drafting of statements may be found at http://igf-online.net/digress.it/. Please go there to read the draft statement on Wikileaks and to add your comments (instructions for doing so are on the site). If this goes well, we will try to integrate this facility into our main Web site in the future, together with other facilities from http://igf-online.net such as the survey tool. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 10 10:43:01 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:43:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, Just sent the letter to CSTD. Sorry, I do not have time/work space now to include the organizational names signed to this. I will add these asap. In the mean time, they have announced the selection of WG only by the governments. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 So we need to work on the next steps. All ideas and suggestions welcome. Thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 2010/12/11 Subject: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG on IGF To: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi Hamdi , Anne Miroux Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Dear Sir/Madam, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to submit the following letter to show our strong disagreement with the recent decision of the Working Group composition for the improvement of the IGF. Thank you for your kind attention, Izumi Aizu Jeremy Malcolm Coordinators of IGC ----------- Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey Chairperson UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, Vice Chairperson, UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed true. In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of “openness and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF process. The overall approach to this important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and spirit. The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. As the Chair’s Summary says: *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive manner” * In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will introduce a degree of delay in the overall process. We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to date acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. It is our feeling that this action might negatively impact the current ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner. We further ask that an approach be pursued that is satisfactory to all stakeholders. We hope that we may have misunderstood the significance of this decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. -- Signed by: The Internet Governance Caucus More to join -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 10 11:25:35 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:25:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 00:43:01 on Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >In the mean time, they have announced the selection of WG only by the >governments. > >http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 > >So we need to work on the next steps. All ideas and suggestions >welcome. They mention they'll also consult with ECOSOC consultative status entities - no mention of WSIS accredited entities. -- 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 caffsouza at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 12:55:49 2010 From: caffsouza at gmail.com (Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:55:49 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lula=B4s_speech_supporting_Wikileaks?= Message-ID: Some of you may have already seen that, but here is President Lula´s support for Wikileaks (with English subtitles) in a speech delivered yesterday in Brasilia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xAY7KkcUYk&feature=related Best, Carlos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 10 13:07:07 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:07:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lula=B4s_speech_supporting_Wikile?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aks?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This one is directly exhibited with subtitles in English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPQhcE5_8Lw&feature=related On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza < caffsouza at gmail.com> wrote: > Some of you may have already seen that, but here is President Lula´s > support for Wikileaks (with English subtitles) in a speech delivered > yesterday in Brasilia: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xAY7KkcUYk&feature=related > > Best, > Carlos > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 13:08:15 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:08:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Agreed re leveraging this as talking point to draw attention to need for broader - mutlistakeholder  - IG framework. There is already a MS IG Framework, you can see it graphically here: http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/ecosystem.shtml > > Re misleading headlines, well that's how the media game is played, and I for one don't have  a problem with IGC playing that game too - for a good cause. > > The bogeyman of 'governments taking over' or 'UN taking over' Internet is also shown to be imaginary by the current case, we can make that point too. I thought it was proved by the current case, no? Governments will act in what they perceive to be their own interests, IG Framework or not, they will still take unilateral decisions. Does anyone honestly think this is not the case? -- 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 Fri Dec 10 13:14:29 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:14:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] The Hindu Edit: Shooting the messenger In-Reply-To: <4D01D2DD.6000506@gmail.com> References: <4D01D2DD.6000506@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [For all those who used the free speech argument in favour of de facto US > control of the "root" I don't think anyone on this list has ever used free speech to defend the US' de facto "control" of the root. In fact, I don't think anyone on this list has actually ever defended the US role. -- 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 Fri Dec 10 13:23:38 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:23:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F3E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Leaving aside the 1st hypothesis that this is already best of all possible IG worlds, re 2nd point of how present case disproves the 'un/govt taking over net' hysteria: Well gee they've (whether 'they' is USG or other govts or...(insert name of your favorite ___bad guy___ here) really managed to 'shut down' wikileaks haven't they? Or, not so much. All the net king's horses and henchmen have only managed to teach everyone how to spell someone's name right. Classic PT Barnum 101. Really case has proven the old nethead adage that the Internet interprets censorship as a bug and routes around. Anyway, for the IGC statement I suggest we need not get into specifics. Main thing is to shamelessly promote ourselves/Internet Governance Caucus ----think 'what would Julian do'? ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Agreed re leveraging this as talking point to draw attention to need for broader - mutlistakeholder - IG framework. There is already a MS IG Framework, you can see it graphically here: http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/ecosystem.shtml > > Re misleading headlines, well that's how the media game is played, and I for one don't have a problem with IGC playing that game too - for a good cause. > > The bogeyman of 'governments taking over' or 'UN taking over' Internet is also shown to be imaginary by the current case, we can make that point too. I thought it was proved by the current case, no? Governments will act in what they perceive to be their own interests, IG Framework or not, they will still take unilateral decisions. Does anyone honestly think this is not the case? -- 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 khaled.koubaa at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 13:38:51 2010 From: khaled.koubaa at gmail.com (Khaled KOUBAA) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:38:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] The Future of the Internet Governance Forum Message-ID: <4D0273BB.1090803@gmail.com> FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [ISOC] The Future of the Internet Governance Forum Date : Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:24:32 +0100 De : Pour : isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org Dear Colleagues, In an extraordinary meeting on 6 December the United Nation's Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) decided to create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) (http://www.intgovforum.org/) with a membership made up only of governments. We believe this decision sets back the model of multistakeholder cooperation under which the IGF was established, and contradicts the instructions given to the CSTD for the establishment of the Working Group The Internet Society has joined the International Chamber of Commerce - Business Action to Support the Information Society, the Internet Governance Caucus, and many other Internet, business, and civil society organizations in sending a letter to the CSTD, asking them to retract their previous decision and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group that ensures the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums. Like the Internet, a multistakeholder approach has been at the core of the Internet Governance Forum's formation and success. We hope that Internet Society Chapters and Members, as well as other organizations, will join us in signing the letter. You may read the full letter, and see the growing list of signatories, and indicated your own support here: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710 Sincerely, Jon McNerney Chief Operating Officer Internet Society www.isoc.org _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests& Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 14:03:31 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:33:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] The Future of the Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: <4D0273BB.1090803@gmail.com> References: <4D0273BB.1090803@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello, Is there a possibility that a few powerful Governments instructed their CSTD representatives to cause this sudden shift in thinking across the CSTD and move away from mutli-stakeholder Governance model to an unilateral Governance model whereby Governments take the seats leaving Civil Society out there on the street to hold placards that are ignored? Such instructions could be part of the abrupt reactions on the wake of the Wiki-Leaks issue. Perhaps the Governments want to take total and complete charge of the Internet, to be in a position to wield totalitarian control over what is and what is not on the Internet. Sivasubramanian M http://isolatednetwork.com http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > FYI > > -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [ISOC] The Future of the > Internet Governance Forum Date : Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:24:32 +0100 De : > Pour : isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org > > Dear Colleagues, > > In an extraordinary meeting on 6 December the United Nation's > Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) decided to > create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF) (http://www.intgovforum.org/) with a membership made up > only of governments. > > We believe this decision sets back the model of multistakeholder > cooperation under which the IGF was established, and contradicts the > instructions given to the CSTD for the establishment of the Working > Group > > The Internet Society has joined the International Chamber of Commerce > - Business Action to Support the Information Society, the Internet > Governance Caucus, and many other Internet, business, and civil > society organizations in sending a letter to the CSTD, asking them to > retract their previous decision and to establish an appropriately > constituted Working Group that ensures the full and active > participation of governments, the private sector and civil society > from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant > intergovernmental and international organizations and forums. > > Like the Internet, a multistakeholder approach has been at the core of > the Internet Governance Forum's formation and success. We hope that > Internet Society Chapters and Members, as well as other organizations, > will join us in signing the letter. > > You may read the full letter, and see the growing list of signatories, > and indicated your own support here: > http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710 > > > Sincerely, > > Jon McNerney > Chief Operating Officer > Internet Societywww.isoc.org > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal:https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Fri Dec 10 14:17:38 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:17:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2647FFDB-C2FA-4079-AB03-B899EBE6427D@christopherwilkinson.eu> Dear Izumi Aizu: I confirm my signature to the letter. Regards, Christopher Wilkinson Chair, Internet Society European Chapters Coordinating Council (ISOC- ECC) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2010/12/11 > Subject: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to > CSTD WG on IGF > To: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi Hamdi > , Anne Miroux > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to submit > the following > letter to show our strong disagreement with the recent decision of > the Working > Group composition for the improvement of the IGF. > > Thank you for your kind attention, > > Izumi Aizu > Jeremy Malcolm > Coordinators of IGC > > ----------- > > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF > will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil > Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be > included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we > first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed > true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the > undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that > decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by > the concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group > in an ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same > mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General > Assembly resolution. We feel that the process undertaken violates > principles of “openness and inclusion” which form the background to > the entire IGF process. The overall approach to this important issue > related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis > Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > letter and spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius > IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that > the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, > modality and work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > > It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder > character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been > successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities > and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it > was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced > number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil > society and the private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use > the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), > which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS > “in an open and inclusive manner” > > > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition > is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental > stakeholders (civil society, business and Internet technical > community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non- > governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued development > and success of building the people-centered Information Society. > Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including that "The > international management of the Internet should be multilateral, > transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, > but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will > introduce a degree of delay in the overall process. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to > date acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the > possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. > It is our feeling that this action might negatively impact the > current ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been > evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner. We further ask that an > approach be pursued that is satisfactory to all stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the significance of this > decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we > are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to > the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction > of the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders > since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will > make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to > further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > -- > > Signed by: > > The Internet Governance Caucus > More to join > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 10 15:31:07 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:31:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: UN Resolution 60/262 requested ECOSOC to oversee the whole follow-up of WISIS and to review the mandate, agenda and composition of the CSTD, *taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach *(paragraph 12). In the face of this oversight role, should an appeal or a statement to ECOSOC be considered in our strategy? Marília On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Just sent the letter to CSTD. Sorry, I do not have time/work space now > to include the organizational names signed to this. I will add these > asap. > > In the mean time, they have announced the selection of WG only by the > governments. > > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 > > So we need to work on the next steps. All ideas and suggestions > welcome. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2010/12/11 > Subject: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG > on IGF > To: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi Hamdi , > Anne Miroux > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to submit the > following > letter to show our strong disagreement with the recent decision of the > Working > Group composition for the improvement of the IGF. > > Thank you for your kind attention, > > Izumi Aizu > Jeremy Malcolm > Coordinators of IGC > > ----------- > > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will > comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private > Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no > official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if > the above mentioned is indeed true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, > would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is > apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC > resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive > manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be > communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We feel that the > process undertaken violates principles of “openness and inclusion” which > form the background to the entire IGF process. The overall approach to this > important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the > Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > letter and spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF > consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working > Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > > *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character > and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and > should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of > the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the > private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in > the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive > manner” > > > * > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not > in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil > society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from > the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to > the continued development and success of building the people-centered > Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we > do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will introduce a > degree of delay in the overall process. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to date > acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible > consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. It is our feeling > that this action might negatively impact the current ecology and future of > Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder > manner. We further ask that an approach be pursued that is satisfactory to > all stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the significance of this decision > and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not > mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, > but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust > that has been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of > meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and > irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet > governance at this crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > -- > > Signed by: > > The Internet Governance Caucus > More to join > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolinaaguerre at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 15:59:52 2010 From: carolinaaguerre at gmail.com (Carolina Aguerre) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:59:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: <2647FFDB-C2FA-4079-AB03-B899EBE6427D@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <2647FFDB-C2FA-4079-AB03-B899EBE6427D@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: I do as well. Carolina Aguerre Centro de Tecnología y Sociedad Universidad de San Andrés Buenos Aires, Argentina www.udesa.edu.ar 2010/12/10 CW Mail > Dear Izumi Aizu: > > I confirm my signature to the letter. > > Regards, > > Christopher Wilkinson > Chair, Internet Society European Chapters Coordinating Council (ISOC-ECC) > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2010/12/11 > Subject: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Letter to CSTD WG > on IGF > To: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi Hamdi , > Anne Miroux > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would like to submit the > following > letter to show our strong disagreement with the recent decision of the > Working > Group composition for the improvement of the IGF. > > Thank you for your kind attention, > > Izumi Aizu > Jeremy Malcolm > Coordinators of IGC > > ----------- > > > Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey > Chairperson > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, > Vice Chairperson, > UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > > Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, > > Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. > > We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will > comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private > Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no > official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if > the above mentioned is indeed true. > > In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, > would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is > apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC > resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive > manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be > communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We feel that the > process undertaken violates principles of “openness and inclusion” which > form the background to the entire IGF process. The overall approach to this > important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the > Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in > letter and spirit. > > The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF > consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working > Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. > > As the Chair’s Summary says: > > *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character > and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and > should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of > the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. > > Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was > essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of > representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the > private sector. > > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in > the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive > manner” > > > * > In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not > in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil > society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from > the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to > the continued development and success of building the people-centered > Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles > including that "The international management of the Internet should be > multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society and international > organizations.” > > We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we > do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will introduce a > degree of delay in the overall process. > > We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to date > acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible > consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. It is our feeling > that this action might negatively impact the current ecology and future of > Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder > manner. We further ask that an approach be pursued that is satisfactory to > all stakeholders. > > We hope that we may have misunderstood the significance of this decision > and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not > mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, > but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust > that has been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of > meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and > irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet > governance at this crucial time. > > We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. > > -- > > Signed by: > > The Internet Governance Caucus > More to join > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 10 21:22:51 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:22:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! Message-ID: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> Holas, Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us in a campaign to fight online censorship: https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would love your help to be able to reach out to the international communities to help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting online censorship. If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, though if you are interested we could also let you know about any future campaigns. We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and Spanish. We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish speakers to look at our translations. We would also like other languages. We are especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, and Arabic, but would appreciate many other languages as well! Please let us know if you can help. -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Dec 11 01:32:47 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:32:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! Message-ID: <263445.37398.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Katitza, On behalf of Urdu Internet Society, we can provide you the support for Urdu Translation of documents/contents/material which are related to Internet Governance. Please inform us about the volume of the work (contents/material) and the timeframe. Thanks Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Urdu Internet Society (UISoc) Pakistan Internet Governance Forum (IGPPak) On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:22 PKT Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >Holas, > >Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us in a campaign to fight online censorship: https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would love your help to be able to reach out to the international communities to help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting online censorship. > >If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, though if you are interested we could also let you know about any future campaigns. > >We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and Spanish. We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish speakers to look at our translations. We would also like other languages. We are especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, and Arabic, but would appreciate many other languages as well! Please let us know if you can help. > >-- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 11 04:13:31 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:13:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> On 10/12/2010, at 8:03 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > My experiment with a new system to supplement the mailing list for drafting of statements may be found at http://igf-online.net/digress.it/. Please go there to read the draft statement on Wikileaks and to add your comments (instructions for doing so are on the site). Those who haven't commented on the Wikileaks statement yet but plan to, please visit http://igf-online.net/digress.it/ latest today or tomorrow. David Allen is copying some materials to take to the Enhanced Cooperation consultation and will need this ready by Monday morning. Thanks! -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gorka.orueta at ehu.es Sat Dec 11 04:41:55 2010 From: gorka.orueta at ehu.es (Gorka Orueta Estibariz) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:41:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! In-Reply-To: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> Message-ID: <20101211104155.12641pxkv2xozpfo@www.ehu.es> Hola Katitza, Count on me with the translations to spanish, I'll be glad to help as proofreader. Tell me what you need and the timeframe. Best regards Gorka Orueta University of the Basque Country Katitza Rodriguez escribió: > Holas, > > Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us > in a campaign to fight online censorship: > https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would love > your help to be able to reach out to the international communities > to help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting online > censorship. > > If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a > great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, > though if you are interested we could also let you know about any > future campaigns. > > We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and Spanish. > We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish speakers to look > at our translations. We would also like other languages. We are > especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, and Arabic, but would > appreciate many other languages as well! Please let us know if you > can help. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 11 08:42:04 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:42:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F32@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Louis Pouzin wrote: > ITU-D and  UNESCO are missed out. there are literally hundreds of organisations that could be listed. I think they went for categories of orgs for the most part, so "multilateral organisations and development agencies" probably encompasses those. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Dec 11 13:41:58 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:41:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] UNCSTD References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> <20101211104155.12641pxkv2xozpfo@www.ehu.es> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0757F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi all did you notice that the name ot the WG has changed into "Working Group on Internet Governance"? See: http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 Furthermore, the consultations on December 17, 2010 in Geneva are not open to the public but only to entities that have consultative status in the UNCSTD. This excludes obviously all individuals like academics or technical experts. Has the IGC a consultative status in the UNCSTD? Any comment on this? 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 From anriette at apc.org Sat Dec 11 13:45:40 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:45:40 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] UNCSTD In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0757F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.d e> References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> <20101211104155.12641pxkv2xozpfo@www.ehu.es> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0757F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1081.196.38.225.162.1292093140.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Dear Wolfgang... I think it should be open to all WSIS accredited entities... that is what the resolution that was passed in May (with regard to non-governmental participation in the CSTD) stated. APC does have ECOSOC status and Izumi is welcome to register under our name should that be necessary. It would be good to know who will be in Geneva for the 17th. I will be London.. so it might be possible for me to go... certainly easier than coming all the way from Johannesburg. Best Anriette > Hi all > > did you notice that the name ot the WG has changed into "Working Group on > Internet Governance"? > > See: > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 > > Furthermore, the consultations on December 17, 2010 in Geneva are not open > to the public but only to entities that have consultative status in the > UNCSTD. This excludes obviously all individuals like academics or > technical experts. Has the IGC a consultative status in the UNCSTD? > > Any comment on this? > > 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 mazzone at ebu.ch Sat Dec 11 13:57:25 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:57:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] UNCSTD Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF4E09FA135@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Dear all, Unfortunately on the 17 I'll be in Khartoum for the General Assembly of the Arabic broadcasters. Giacomo ----- Original Message ----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sat Dec 11 19:45:40 2010 Subject: Re: [governance] UNCSTD Dear Wolfgang... I think it should be open to all WSIS accredited entities... that is what the resolution that was passed in May (with regard to non-governmental participation in the CSTD) stated. APC does have ECOSOC status and Izumi is welcome to register under our name should that be necessary. It would be good to know who will be in Geneva for the 17th. I will be London.. so it might be possible for me to go... certainly easier than coming all the way from Johannesburg. Best Anriette > Hi all > > did you notice that the name ot the WG has changed into "Working Group on > Internet Governance"? > > See: > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 > > Furthermore, the consultations on December 17, 2010 in Geneva are not open > to the public but only to entities that have consultative status in the > UNCSTD. This excludes obviously all individuals like academics or > technical experts. Has the IGC a consultative status in the UNCSTD? > > Any comment on this? > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Sat Dec 11 13:59:44 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:59:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] UNCSTD In-Reply-To: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF4E09FA135@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> References: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF4E09FA135@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Message-ID: Dear all, I'll be there for ISOC Best,Yrjö > From: mazzone at ebu.ch > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; anriette at apc.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:57:25 +0100 > Subject: Re: [governance] UNCSTD > > Dear all, > Unfortunately on the 17 I'll be in Khartoum for the General Assembly of the Arabic broadcasters. > Giacomo > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Sent: Sat Dec 11 19:45:40 2010 > Subject: Re: [governance] UNCSTD > > Dear Wolfgang... I think it should be open to all WSIS accredited > entities... that is what the resolution that was passed in May (with > regard to non-governmental participation in the CSTD) stated. > > APC does have ECOSOC status and Izumi is welcome to register under our > name should that be necessary. > > It would be good to know who will be in Geneva for the 17th. I will be > London.. so it might be possible for me to go... certainly easier than > coming all the way from Johannesburg. > > Best > > Anriette > > > Hi all > > > > did you notice that the name ot the WG has changed into "Working Group on > > Internet Governance"? > > > > See: > > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 > > > > Furthermore, the consultations on December 17, 2010 in Geneva are not open > > to the public but only to entities that have consultative status in the > > UNCSTD. This excludes obviously all individuals like academics or > > technical experts. Has the IGC a consultative status in the UNCSTD? > > > > Any comment on this? > > > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 11 14:29:17 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:29:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! In-Reply-To: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> Message-ID: I am available for Urdu and English proofreading and Urdu translations.... Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 11 Dec 2010, at 07:22, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Holas, > > Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us in a campaign to fight online censorship: https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would love your help to be able to reach out to the international communities to help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting online censorship. > > If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, though if you are interested we could also let you know about any future campaigns. > > We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and Spanish. We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish speakers to look at our translations. We would also like other languages. We are especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, and Arabic, but would appreciate many other languages as well! Please let us know if you can help. > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 11 14:49:06 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:49:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! In-Reply-To: References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D03D5B2.6010409@eff.org> Thank you everyone. We will contact all of you in private. I am still seeking volunteers for Hindu, Bengali, Italian, French, Arabic, and Chinese. Please send me a private note to katitza @ eff .org All the best, Katitza On 12/11/10 11:29 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I am available for Urdu and English proofreading and Urdu translations.... > > Fouad Bajwa > sent using my iPad > > On 11 Dec 2010, at 07:22, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Holas, >> >> Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us in a campaign to fight online censorship: https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would love your help to be able to reach out to the international communities to help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting online censorship. >> >> If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, though if you are interested we could also let you know about any future campaigns. >> >> We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and Spanish. We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish speakers to look at our translations. We would also like other languages. We are especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, and Arabic, but would appreciate many other languages as well! Please let us know if you can help. >> >> -- >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Dec 11 20:23:30 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:23:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 11/12/2010, at 5:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Those who haven't commented on the Wikileaks statement yet but plan to, please visit http://igf-online.net/digress.it/ latest today or tomorrow. David Allen is copying some materials to take to the Enhanced Cooperation consultation and will need this ready by Monday morning. Check back again now and you'll see revision marks for the changes I've made in response to the comments so far. Of course, some of the comments are mutually contradictory so I haven't been able to incorporate all of them. Final comments can be made within the next 24 hours. Because we won't however have time for a formal consensus call on this before David needs it, I feel that we cannot call it a consensus statement, so I propose just putting my own name to it as IGC co-coordinator. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 00:45:55 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:15:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Hi Jeremy I and my organization will support the statement. We need to use the Wikileak affair to jolt ourselves out of complacency, and the vain techno-fascinated hope that the myriad global internet issues will resolve by themselves, which is what has landed us in the jungle law mess (apologies to the feelings of Ian about nature, jungles and human beings :)) where power is exercised in illegal means used in wikileaks affair, and not, to the extent it is required to be used, in a sound politically legitimate manner. The statement is well written. Jeremy, can you post the text as it stands on the list. Some of these online means may be more efficient, and we shd use them by and by, but I understand that some people here still, by habit, would like to see the texts of proposed statements in this elist. And also an open discussion, suggestions for changes etc is very useful (the process of public reasoning) as against private changes to the texts in an online space. (We need to use a mix of two, but that for later). While I will like the full statement to be used, it is also possible that David uses a smaller version. Something like (i am sure the following could be improved a lot) "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global Internet cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of political and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this approach of using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be abused, as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. Second, in possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some urgent global governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps even opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom levels of power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not available to less powerful political players or countries. This situation bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic principles and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, which is the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation should address itself to. " parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/12/2010, at 5:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Those who haven't commented on the Wikileaks statement yet but plan >> to, please visit http://igf-online.net/digress.it/ latest today or >> tomorrow. David Allen is copying some materials to take to the >> Enhanced Cooperation consultation and will need this ready by Monday >> morning. > > Check back again now and you'll see revision marks for the changes > I've made in response to the comments so far. Of course, some of the > comments are mutually contradictory so I haven't been able to > incorporate all of them. Final comments can be made within the next > 24 hours. Because we won't however have time for a formal consensus > call on this before David needs it, I feel that we cannot call it a > consensus statement, so I propose just putting my own name to it as > IGC co-coordinator. > > -- > > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Dec 12 00:52:14 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:52:14 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Must say I am hugely more attracted to Parminders wording than the longer text under discussion from Jeremy. From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:15:55 +0530 To: , Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks Hi Jeremy I and my organization will support the statement. We need to use the Wikileak affair to jolt ourselves out of complacency, and the vain techno-fascinated hope that the myriad global internet issues will resolve by themselves, which is what has landed us in the jungle law mess (apologies to the feelings of Ian about nature, jungles and human beings :)) where power is exercised in illegal means used in wikileaks affair, and not, to the extent it is required to be used, in a sound politically legitimate manner. The statement is well written. Jeremy, can you post the text as it stands on the list. Some of these online means may be more efficient, and we shd use them by and by, but I understand that some people here still, by habit, would like to see the texts of proposed statements in this elist. And also an open discussion, suggestions for changes etc is very useful (the process of public reasoning) as against private changes to the texts in an online space. (We need to use a mix of two, but that for later). While I will like the full statement to be used, it is also possible that David uses a smaller version. Something like (i am sure the following could be improved a lot) > "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global Internet > cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of political and > commercial power. There are two clear problems with this approach of using > backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be abused, as in > our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. Second, in possible > cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some urgent global > governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps even > opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom levels of > power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some > governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not available > to less powerful political players or countries. This situation bespeaks a > democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic principles and > institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, which is the > urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation should > address itself to. " parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 11/12/2010, at 5:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >> >> >> >> Those who haven't commented on the Wikileaks statement yet but plan to, >> please visit http://igf-online.net/digress.it/ latest today or tomorrow. >>  David Allen is copying some materials to take to the Enhanced Cooperation >> consultation and will need this ready by Monday morning. >> >> >> > > > Check back again now and you'll see revision marks for the changes I've made > in response to the comments so far.  Of course, some of the comments are > mutually contradictory so I haven't been able to incorporate all of them. >  Final comments can be made within the next 24 hours.  Because we won't > however have time for a formal consensus call on this before David needs it, I > feel that we cannot call it a consensus statement, so I propose just putting > my own name to it as IGC co-coordinator. > > > > > > > > > --  > > > > 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 > t1stParentNodeID=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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 01:02:17 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:02:17 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> On 12/12/2010, at 1:45 PM, parminder wrote: > The statement is well written. Jeremy, can you post the text as it stands on the list. Some of these online means may be more efficient, and we shd use them by and by, but I understand that some people here still, by habit, would like to see the texts of proposed statements in this elist. The recent publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables by Wikileaks has produced an extremist reaction by some governments, provoking them and compliant large corporations to strike out at the organisation's Web site, its financial base, and the person of its founder, Julian Assange. For the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), this highlights the need for cross-border Internet governance issues to be made a subject to a due process of law, informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights. In its early days, the Internet was a model of decentralised, voluntary self-governance. When Internet content abuses occurred – for example by posting of spam to newsgroups – the community would respond with its own social and technical countermeasures. Into this self-regulated domain, governments have since stepped. Some, for example, have passed laws to control spam, which with varying effectiveness now supplement – but do not supplant – the social and technical means by which the Internet community continues to self-govern. But because of the Internet's inherently trans-border architecture, the uncoordinated application of national laws is rarely adequate for the regulation of Internet content. More importantly, because individual governments do not represent trans-border communities, the attempted use of such laws to control global flows of Internet content is not democratically legitimate. Still less legitimate by far is their arbitrary and extra-legal use of political and economic power, as we have seen directed against Wikileaks. This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable fashion. What is needed is a framework of principles for Internet governance, which would guide all stakeholders in dealing with trans-border issues such as Internet content regulation, and provide democratic accountability and mechanisms of redress. This framework would comply with existing human rights standards including the rule of law, and be developed through an open, democratic process inclusive of all stakeholders from government, the private sector, and civil society. It so happens that this is exactly what the IGC has been calling for since about 2003. It is also what WSIS, a global summit of governments, called for in 2005 when directing the United Nations Secretary General to start a "process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders" (Tunis Agenda para 71) to address the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68). What is perhaps most scandalous about the Wikileaks case is that it has taken a global diplomatic crisis to turn the international community's attention back to what it committed to achieve five years ago. The IGC hopes that it doesn't take another five years before this enhanced global democratic framework of governance for the Internet finally takes shape. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 01:24:41 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:24:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> Hi there, I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in a submission to the United Nations. BTW, the hacker community is not involve in those attacks. You should be careful. The hacker community (who does legal things) "freedom to tinker" has issued a press release about it. See: 600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037 In any case, I think, that paragrahp does not add anything in a submission to the UN, and it can be not well understood by Government officials. Finally, I would apologize but I am not sure if I will be able to get comments from my organization for this submission for this tight deadline. However, I will do my best to see if I am able to do it within your deadline. All the best, Katitza On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods > are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the > retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. > In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have > responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable > fashion. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 01:33:19 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:33:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > > "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global Internet > cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of political > and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this approach of > using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be abused, > as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. Second, in > possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some urgent > global governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps even > opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom levels of > power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some > governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not > available to less powerful political players or countries. This situation > bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic principles > and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, which is > the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation > should address itself to. " I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its development, would you all still be in favor of said framework building? -- 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 katitza at eff.org Sun Dec 12 01:40:57 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:40:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D046E79.4090607@eff.org> Hi there, In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim mentioned here. IGC is moving an agenda where there is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I mentioned, since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement. It would be good that you listed the names of those who support it. Thanks. On 12/11/10 10:33 PM, McTim wrote: > Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global Internet >> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of political >> and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this approach of >> using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be abused, >> as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. Second, in >> possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some urgent >> global governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps even >> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom levels of >> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some >> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not >> available to less powerful political players or countries. This situation >> bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic principles >> and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, which is >> the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation >> should address itself to. " > > I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if > the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). > > If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" > of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its > development, would you all still be in favor of said framework > building? > > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Dec 12 01:53:22 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:53:22 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No > From: McTim > Reply-To: , McTim > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:33:19 +0300 > To: , parminder > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks > > Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> > >> >> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global Internet >> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of political >> and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this approach of >> using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be abused, >> as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. Second, in >> possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some urgent >> global governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps even >> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom levels of >> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some >> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not >> available to less powerful political players or countries. This situation >> bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic principles >> and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, which is >> the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation >> should address itself to. " > > > I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if > the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). > > If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" > of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its > development, would you all still be in favor of said framework > building? > > > -- > 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 Sun Dec 12 01:55:42 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:25:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D0471EE.1080008@itforchange.net> McTim wrote: > Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, > > > I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if > the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). > > If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" > of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its > development, would you all still be in favor of said framework > building? > McTim, Also entirely a hypothetical response (framed as a question) bec I do not support a simple acceptance of the imperfect governance structure presented in my response. Would you like to live without a government at all, or with a government that is not perfect, while keeping up all efforts to perfect it. Either you are completely anarchist, or you have simply decided that the Internet and the new social paradigm shaped by the Internet is somehow, magically, a territory completely different from the world we live in and have known and it requires no political governance. This assumption of a large number of what often gets called as the technical community (though I never understood the real meaning of this term) is to me so basically faulty that it is difficult to engage with questions raised upon it, which, without meaning any disrespect, is the nature of most of your questions to me. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 02:06:15 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:06:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> Message-ID: On 12/12/2010, at 2:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in a submission to the United Nations. It's not a submission to the United Nations, it's a handout and something to publish online. I've seen very similar handouts at WIPO and other intergovernmental meetings. Our submission to the United Nations is here: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43 -- 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 Sun Dec 12 02:17:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:47:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D046E79.4090607@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <4D046E79.4090607@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi there, > > In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim > mentioned here. IGC is moving an agenda where there > is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I > mentioned, since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet > a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement. Katitza and McTim One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to involve CS. That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation statement. Wikileaks parts just highlights the kind of basic substantive issues involved here. So, how do you judge that we are 'moving an agenda where there is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing'. Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to involvement of CS on an equal footing. Worse, the globally non-democratic and non-inclusive nature of these initiatives makes it rather quite 'certain' that, when the crunch comes, the decisions/outcomes will favor richer countries and other dominant groups. Is it not obvious. I often wonder about the nature of this 'political fiction' of civil society being by and in itself a political constituency, and the way propping this fiction has become the main task of many in the IG CS space. I am civil society (as in organized CS) only as a political expedient. My basic politics is to represent and serve the interests of those people and groups who I see as structurally and systemically marginalized in current power equations. parminder > It would be good that you listed the names of those who support it. > Thanks. > > > On 12/11/10 10:33 PM, McTim wrote: >> Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, >> parminder wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy >>> >>> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global >>> Internet >>> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of >>> political >>> and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this >>> approach of >>> using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be >>> abused, >>> as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. >>> Second, in >>> possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some >>> urgent >>> global governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps >>> even >>> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom >>> levels of >>> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some >>> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not >>> available to less powerful political players or countries. This >>> situation >>> bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic >>> principles >>> and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, >>> which is >>> the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation >>> should address itself to. " >> >> I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if >> the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). >> >> If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" >> of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its >> development, would you all still be in favor of said framework >> building? >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 02:36:33 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:36:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <4D046E79.4090607@eff.org> <4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D047B81.2020103@eff.org> Hi Parminder I have read and hear your opinions several times. I also mentioned that I do not give support to any inter-gov. organization since results can be for the good and for the bad. I prefer to take a more reactive approach, see what is going to happen. In any case, the deadline is short and I cant run this through my organization for a discussion before your deadline. So I do not have an institutional position on this as of now. On 12/11/10 11:17 PM, parminder wrote: > > > Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim >> mentioned here. IGC is moving an agenda where there >> is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I >> mentioned, since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet >> a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement. > Katitza and McTim > > One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to involve > CS. That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation statement. > Wikileaks parts just highlights the kind of basic substantive issues > involved here. So, how do you judge that we are 'moving an agenda > where there is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing'. > > Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to involvement > of CS on an equal footing. Worse, the globally non-democratic and > non-inclusive nature of these initiatives makes it rather quite > 'certain' that, when the crunch comes, the decisions/outcomes will > favor richer countries and other dominant groups. Is it not obvious. > > I often wonder about the nature of this 'political fiction' of civil > society being by and in itself a political constituency, and the way > propping this fiction has become the main task of many in the IG CS > space. > > I am civil society (as in organized CS) only as a political > expedient. My basic politics is to represent and serve the > interests of those people and groups who I see as structurally and > systemically marginalized in current power equations. parminder > >> It would be good that you listed the names of those who support it. >> Thanks. >> >> >> On 12/11/10 10:33 PM, McTim wrote: >>> Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, >>> parminder wrote: >>>> Hi Jeremy >>>> >>>> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global >>>> Internet >>>> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of >>>> political >>>> and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this >>>> approach of >>>> using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be >>>> abused, >>>> as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. >>>> Second, in >>>> possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some >>>> urgent >>>> global governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps >>>> even >>>> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom >>>> levels of >>>> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some >>>> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not >>>> available to less powerful political players or countries. This >>>> situation >>>> bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic >>>> principles >>>> and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, >>>> which is >>>> the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation >>>> should address itself to. " >>> >>> I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if >>> the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). >>> >>> If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" >>> of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its >>> development, would you all still be in favor of said framework >>> building? >>> >>> >> >> -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 02:41:57 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:41:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> Hi Jeremy, Still the document will be read by governments. Para. 4 is not well drafted. While EFF does not condem DDoS attacks to any of both sides, as speech should be fight with more speech. Many others (not me) believe that those attacks are also political speech/civil disobedience. As Magagin 2006 said: "While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against." In any case, I personally do not like the way it is framed. You should not use the word hackers. Those DDoS attacks were made by who knows! *PRESS RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS* Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC PRESS RELEASE HACKER MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS New York, NY, December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal for the hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking out against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for a spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part of the ongoing Wikileaks controversy. Denial of service attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and other corporations and entities have been underway for the last few days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these targets had previously taken some sort of action against the whistleblower website wikileaks.org and its affiliates. The media reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being behind these actions. While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against. These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. What the above named corporations have done to Wikileaks is inexcusable and constitutes a different sort of denial of service attack, one that is designed to eliminate an organization, an individual, or an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can easily be made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals through these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes leaked information - and which has never been charged or convicted of a crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the place of credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or potential threat level of anyone, let alone those who are following in the long tradition of journalists and free speech advocates worldwide. The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new restrictions on the Internet, not to mention the fact that the exact same types of attacks can be used on "us" as well as "them." (Interestingly, it was only a week ago that "hackers" were blamed for denial of service attacks on Wikileaks itself. That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most importantly, these attacks are turning attention away from what is going on with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such immature and boorish activities any more than it helps the hacker community. From what we have been hearing over the past 24 hours, this is a viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By uniting our voices, speaking out against this sort of action, and correcting every media account we see and hear that associates hackers with these attacks, we stand a good chance of educating the public, rather than enflaming their fears and assumptions. There are a number of positive steps people - both inside and outside of the hacker community - can take to support Wikileaks and help spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem. 2600 Magazine has been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, about, and for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 by the Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and thus became the first test case of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by linking to their existing website through wikileaks.2600.com. We've already changed where this address points to twice as Wikileaks sites have been taken down, and will continue to ensure that this link always manages to get to wherever Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link and support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is being publicized on their site. ### CONTACT: 2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY webmaster at 2600.com Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor Emmanuel at goldste.in www.2600.com +1 631 751 2600 On 12/11/10 10:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi there, > > I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in a > submission to the United Nations. BTW, the hacker community is not > involve in those attacks. You should be careful. The hacker community > (who does legal things) "freedom to tinker" has issued a press release > about it. See: 600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. > http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037 In any case, I think, that > paragrahp does not add anything in a submission to the UN, and it can > be not well understood by Government officials. > > Finally, I would apologize but I am not sure if I will be able to get > comments from my organization for this submission for this tight > deadline. However, I will do my best to see if I am able to do it > within your deadline. > > All the best, Katitza > > > On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods >> are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the >> retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. >> In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have >> responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable >> fashion. > > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 02:47:47 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:47:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D047E23.6030308@eff.org> Sorry my mistake. I meant to said: "condone". This is what we have said: EFF doesn't condone cyber-vigilantism, be it against Mastercard or #WikiLeaks. http://twitter.com/eFF > Hi Jeremy, > > Still the document will be read by governments. Para. 4 is not well > drafted. While EFF does not condone DDoS attacks to any of both sides, > as speech should be fight with more speech. Many others (not me) > believe that those attacks are also political speech/civil > disobedience. As Magagin 2006 said: "While there is great sympathy in > the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is > no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against." In > any case, I personally do not like the way it is framed. You should > not use the word hackers. Those DDoS attacks were made by who knows! > > > *PRESS RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS* > Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC > > PRESS RELEASE > > HACKER MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS > > New York, NY, December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal > for the hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking > out against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for a > spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part of the > ongoing Wikileaks controversy. > > Denial of service attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, > and other corporations and entities have been underway for the last > few days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these > targets had previously taken some sort of action against the > whistleblower website wikileaks.org and its affiliates. The media > reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being behind these > actions. While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what > Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the > strong-arm tactics we are fighting against. > > These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't > accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and > require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs > requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security > weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses > the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe > people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. > > What the above named corporations have done to Wikileaks is > inexcusable and constitutes a different sort of denial of service > attack, one that is designed to eliminate an organization, an > individual, or an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can > easily be made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals > through these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes > leaked information - and which has never been charged or convicted of > a crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the place of > credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or potential > threat level of anyone, let alone those who are following in the long > tradition of journalists and free speech advocates worldwide. > > The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial > of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be > associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the > hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on > freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new restrictions on the > Internet, not to mention the fact that the exact same types of attacks > can be used on "us" as well as "them." (Interestingly, it was only a > week ago that "hackers" were blamed for denial of service attacks on > Wikileaks itself. That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most > importantly, these attacks are turning attention away from what is > going on with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people > attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It > certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such immature > and boorish activities any more than it helps the hacker community. > From what we have been hearing over the past 24 hours, this is a > viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By uniting our voices, > speaking out against this sort of action, and correcting every media > account we see and hear that associates hackers with these attacks, we > stand a good chance of educating the public, rather than enflaming > their fears and assumptions. > > There are a number of positive steps people - both inside and outside > of the hacker community - can take to support Wikileaks and help > spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut > Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any > sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately > doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the > flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, > workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will > also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe > in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence > one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way > of dealing with a problem. > > 2600 Magazine has been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, > about, and for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 > by the Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website > containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and thus > became the first test case of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In > a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by linking to their > existing website through wikileaks.2600.com. We've already changed > where this address points to twice as Wikileaks sites have been taken > down, and will continue to ensure that this link always manages to get > to wherever Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link > and support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is > being publicized on their site. > > ### > > CONTACT: > 2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY > webmaster at 2600.com > Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor > Emmanuel at goldste.in > www.2600.com > +1 631 751 2600 > > > On 12/11/10 10:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in a >> submission to the United Nations. BTW, the hacker community is not >> involve in those attacks. You should be careful. The hacker community >> (who does legal things) "freedom to tinker" has issued a press >> release about it. See: 600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE >> ATTACKS. http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037 In any case, I >> think, that paragrahp does not add anything in a submission to the >> UN, and it can be not well understood by Government officials. >> >> Finally, I would apologize but I am not sure if I will be able to get >> comments from my organization for this submission for this tight >> deadline. However, I will do my best to see if I am able to do it >> within your deadline. >> >> All the best, Katitza >> >> >> On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods >>> are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the >>> retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. >>> In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have >>> responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable >>> fashion. >> >> > > > -- > 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 -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 02:55:32 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:25:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D047B81.2020103@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <4D046E79.4090607@eff.org> <4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net> <4D047B81.2020103@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D047FF4.2090000@itforchange.net> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Parminder > > I have read and hear your opinions several times. I also mentioned > that I do not give support to any inter-gov. organization since > results can be for the good and for the bad. I prefer to take a more > reactive approach, see what is going to happen. In any case, the > deadline is short and I cant run this through my organization for a > discussion before your deadline. So I do not have an institutional > position on this as of now. Sure, Katitza. I expect people and institutions to think their positions and endorsements through, and am not insisting that they sign up on the proposed statement or any such thing. Mine are more general political comments. Exclusion of 70-80 percent of world's population from plurilateral activities of rich countries is at least as important as exclusion of CS in any structural format of governance. For instance, do you think CS orgs involved with environmental issues will stop pushing for international agreements on climate change related steps simply because of the fear that, to quote your words, there may be 'no certainty about our (CS) involvement in equal footing" Or could we stop seeking access to knowledge related agreements under development agenda in WIPO bec of the same fears, esp when ACTA kind of things are in the offing. What makes IG any different? In politics non-action is also an action, in favor of some interests or others. Which is not to say that we should not seek more participative and open governance structures for all of the above. parminder > > On 12/11/10 11:17 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim >>> mentioned here. IGC is moving an agenda where there >>> is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I >>> mentioned, since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet >>> a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement. >> Katitza and McTim >> >> One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to involve >> CS. That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation statement. >> Wikileaks parts just highlights the kind of basic substantive issues >> involved here. So, how do you judge that we are 'moving an agenda >> where there is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing'. >> >> Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to >> involvement of CS on an equal footing. Worse, the globally >> non-democratic and non-inclusive nature of these initiatives makes it >> rather quite 'certain' that, when the crunch comes, the >> decisions/outcomes will favor richer countries and other dominant >> groups. Is it not obvious. >> >> I often wonder about the nature of this 'political fiction' of civil >> society being by and in itself a political constituency, and the way >> propping this fiction has become the main task of many in the IG CS >> space. >> >> I am civil society (as in organized CS) only as a political >> expedient. My basic politics is to represent and serve the >> interests of those people and groups who I see as structurally and >> systemically marginalized in current power equations. parminder >> >>> It would be good that you listed the names of those who support it. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> On 12/11/10 10:33 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, >>>> parminder wrote: >>>>> Hi Jeremy >>>>> >>>>> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global >>>>> Internet >>>>> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of >>>>> political >>>>> and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this >>>>> approach of >>>>> using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to >>>>> be abused, >>>>> as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. >>>>> Second, in >>>>> possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ >>>>> some urgent >>>>> global governance responses to real problems or threats (or >>>>> perhaps even >>>>> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom >>>>> levels of >>>>> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by >>>>> some >>>>> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not >>>>> available to less powerful political players or countries. This >>>>> situation >>>>> bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic >>>>> principles >>>>> and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, >>>>> which is >>>>> the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced >>>>> cooperation >>>>> should address itself to. " >>>> >>>> I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if >>>> the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). >>>> >>>> If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" >>>> of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its >>>> development, would you all still be in favor of said framework >>>> building? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 03:05:10 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:05:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D047FF4.2090000@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <4D046E79.4090607@eff.org> <4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net> <4D047B81.2020103@eff.org> <4D047FF4.2090000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D048236.7050901@eff.org> Parminder, Not everyone is in your fight. There are several important battles. We all have priorities. Wikileaks is one of those most important battles of our life time. I cant concentrate on this statement right now. There are many organizations who are not in this list and are not providing their comments. You should approach them. Specially human rights organizations that are not members of this list! We need them. On 12/11/10 11:55 PM, parminder wrote: > > Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Hi Parminder >> >> I have read and hear your opinions several times. I also mentioned >> that I do not give support to any inter-gov. organization since >> results can be for the good and for the bad. I prefer to take a more >> reactive approach, see what is going to happen. In any case, the >> deadline is short and I cant run this through my organization for a >> discussion before your deadline. So I do not have an institutional >> position on this as of now. > > Sure, Katitza. I expect people and institutions to think their > positions and endorsements through, and am not insisting that they > sign up on the proposed statement or any such thing. Mine are more > general political comments. Exclusion of 70-80 percent of world's > population from plurilateral activities of rich countries is at least > as important as exclusion of CS in any structural format of governance. > > For instance, do you think CS orgs involved with environmental issues > will stop pushing for international agreements on climate change > related steps simply because of the fear that, to quote your words, > there may be 'no certainty about our (CS) involvement in equal footing" > > Or could we stop seeking access to knowledge related agreements under > development agenda in WIPO bec of the same fears, esp when ACTA kind > of things are in the offing. > > What makes IG any different? In politics non-action is also an action, > in favor of some interests or others. > > Which is not to say that we should not seek more participative and > open governance structures for all of the above. > > parminder > >> >> On 12/11/10 11:17 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim >>>> mentioned here. IGC is moving an agenda where there >>>> is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I >>>> mentioned, since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet >>>> a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement. >>> Katitza and McTim >>> >>> One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to >>> involve CS. That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation >>> statement. Wikileaks parts just highlights the kind of basic >>> substantive issues involved here. So, how do you judge that we are >>> 'moving an agenda where there is no certainty about our involvement >>> in equal footing'. >>> >>> Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to >>> involvement of CS on an equal footing. Worse, the globally >>> non-democratic and non-inclusive nature of these initiatives makes >>> it rather quite 'certain' that, when the crunch comes, the >>> decisions/outcomes will favor richer countries and other dominant >>> groups. Is it not obvious. >>> >>> I often wonder about the nature of this 'political fiction' of civil >>> society being by and in itself a political constituency, and the way >>> propping this fiction has become the main task of many in the IG CS >>> space. >>> >>> I am civil society (as in organized CS) only as a political >>> expedient. My basic politics is to represent and serve the >>> interests of those people and groups who I see as structurally and >>> systemically marginalized in current power equations. parminder >>> >>>> It would be good that you listed the names of those who support it. >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/11/10 10:33 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>> Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, >>>>> parminder wrote: >>>>>> Hi Jeremy >>>>>> >>>>>> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global >>>>>> Internet >>>>>> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of >>>>>> political >>>>>> and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this >>>>>> approach of >>>>>> using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to >>>>>> be abused, >>>>>> as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. >>>>>> Second, in >>>>>> possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ >>>>>> some urgent >>>>>> global governance responses to real problems or threats (or >>>>>> perhaps even >>>>>> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom >>>>>> levels of >>>>>> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by >>>>>> some >>>>>> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not >>>>>> available to less powerful political players or countries. This >>>>>> situation >>>>>> bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic >>>>>> principles >>>>>> and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, >>>>>> which is >>>>>> the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced >>>>>> cooperation >>>>>> should address itself to. " >>>>> >>>>> I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if >>>>> the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). >>>>> >>>>> If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a >>>>> "framework" >>>>> of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its >>>>> development, would you all still be in favor of said framework >>>>> building? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 04:39:40 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:39:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <4D046E79.4090607@eff.org> <4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:17 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Hi there, > > In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim mentioned > here. IGC is moving an agenda where there > is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I mentioned, > since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet > a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement. > > Katitza and McTim > > One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to involve CS. > That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation statement. Wikileaks > parts just highlights the kind of basic substantive issues involved here. > So, how do you judge that we are 'moving an agenda where there  is no > certainty about our involvement in equal footing'. From what happened at WSIS (many examples of being kicked out of rooms) and what CSTD did last week. > > Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to involvement of CS > on an equal footing. I didn't mention either OECD or CoE, so I don't know why you brought them up. > If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" > of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its > development, would you all still be in favor of said framework > building? Will you answer the above query? -- 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 Sun Dec 12 05:04:06 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:34:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> McTim wrote: > Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, > > > I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if > the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). > > If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" > of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its > development, would you all still be in favor of said framework > building? > > > McTim Since you again insist on a reply in a second email, i will reply, and also explain why i did not respond earlier. My response is also hypothetical, to your hypothetical question, since I do not support silent acceptance of less than perfect governance structures. My response is in form of a counter question - will you like to live without any government at all, or will you accept an imperfect government, while keeping up all efforts to perfect it? McTim, either you are a complete anarchist or you have simply assumed that Internet and the new social structures being created by it are, somehow magically, a completely new space, completely unlike the world we know and live in, and thus needs no political governance (as we know political governance). I see such a position as very faulty at its very base, and thus am unable to respond meaningfully to questions that are built on this assumption. I can discuss this basic assumption and its fault with you, but no point otherwise arguing too much if we do not settle this basic, framing, issue. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vivekmisra99 at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 01:03:49 2010 From: vivekmisra99 at gmail.com (vivek misra) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:03:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] I added you as a friend on Quepasa.com Message-ID: <20101212060413.2437.1246648738.swift@CHA-ME-003> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 07:10:27 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:10:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] UNCSTD In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0757F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> <20101211104155.12641pxkv2xozpfo@www.ehu.es> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0757F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0757F at server1.medienkomm.un i-halle.de>, at 19:41:58 on Sat, 11 Dec 2010, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes > >Hi all > >did you notice that the name ot the WG has changed into "Working Group >on Internet Governance"? > >See: >http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5755&lang=1 A slip of the keyboard, or something more sinister? The main agenda still has the old title: >Furthermore, the consultations on December 17, 2010 in Geneva are not >open to the public but only to entities that have consultative status >in the UNCSTD. This excludes obviously all individuals like academics >or technical experts. Has the IGC a consultative status in the UNCSTD? You can see who turned up to the most recent main session of the CSTD, and which hats they were wearing: A list of Consultative Status NGOs is here (2008 version) www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/pdf/INF_List.pdf The familiar entities that I know of with Consultative Status are ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux IP européens; & ISOC (since July 2010). -- 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 pouzin at well.com Sun Dec 12 08:37:43 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:37:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Must say I am hugely more attracted to Parminders wording than the longer > text under discussion from Jeremy. > Both texts are appropriate for different purposes. - Short text: one page handout in places where people gather. - It could be published in the media as an executive summary followed by the long text. - For UN session: something based on the short text, but edited for verbal and room athmosphere. Cut in short sentences, spoken slowly, with bits of emotional enhancements. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 11:04:37 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:04:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi, I agree with this position. I am against the use of the word hackers. First the term is ambiguous, there have always been hackers ad mostly it was a good thing, it is the hackers who have made the network work in many cases. And there are also the hackers who do things that are sometimes considered negative. I also agree that we do not know that it is hackers that are doing the DDOS. At this point there are tools and services out there that would allow the most non-technical person to do a DDOS if they so wished. For all we know, these attacks may be the result of skiddie and script bunny activity. a. On 12 Dec 2010, at 02:41, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Still the document will be read by governments. Para. 4 is not well drafted. While EFF does not condem DDoS attacks to any of both sides, as speech should be fight with more speech. Many others (not me) believe that those attacks are also political speech/civil disobedience. As Magagin 2006 said: "While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against." In any case, I personally do not like the way it is framed. You should not use the word hackers. Those DDoS attacks were made by who knows! > > > PRESS RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS > Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC > PRESS RELEASE > > HACKER MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS > > New York, NY, December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal for the hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking out against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for a spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part of the ongoing Wikileaks controversy. > > Denial of service attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and other corporations and entities have been underway for the last few days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these targets had previously taken some sort of action against the whistleblower website wikileaks.org and its affiliates. The media reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being behind these actions. While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against. > > These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. > > What the above named corporations have done to Wikileaks is inexcusable and constitutes a different sort of denial of service attack, one that is designed to eliminate an organization, an individual, or an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can easily be made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals through these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes leaked information - and which has never been charged or convicted of a crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the place of credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or potential threat level of anyone, let alone those who are following in the long tradition of journalists and free speech advocates worldwide. > > The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new restrictions on the Internet, not to mention the fact that the exact same types of attacks can be used on "us" as well as "them." (Interestingly, it was only a week ago that "hackers" were blamed for denial of service attacks on Wikileaks itself. That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most importantly, these attacks are turning attention away from what is going on with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such immature and boorish activities any more than it helps the hacker community. From what we have been hearing over the past 24 hours, this is a viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By uniting our voices, speaking out against this sort of action, and correcting every media account we see and hear that associates hackers with these attacks, we stand a good chance of educating the public, rather than enflaming their fears and assumptions. > > There are a number of positive steps people - both inside and outside of the hacker community - can take to support Wikileaks and help spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem. > > 2600 Magazine has been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, about, and for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 by the Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and thus became the first test case of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by linking to their existing website through wikileaks.2600.com. We've already changed where this address points to twice as Wikileaks sites have been taken down, and will continue to ensure that this link always manages to get to wherever Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link and support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is being publicized on their site. > > ### > > CONTACT: > 2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY > webmaster at 2600.com > Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor > Emmanuel at goldste.in > www.2600.com > +1 631 751 2600 > > > On 12/11/10 10:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in a submission to the United Nations. BTW, the hacker community is not involve in those attacks. You should be careful. The hacker community (who does legal things) "freedom to tinker" has issued a press release about it. See: 600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037 In any case, I think, that paragrahp does not add anything in a submission to the UN, and it can be not well understood by Government officials. >> >> Finally, I would apologize but I am not sure if I will be able to get comments from my organization for this submission for this tight deadline. However, I will do my best to see if I am able to do it within your deadline. >> >> All the best, Katitza >> >> >> On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable fashion. >> >> > > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 11:13:43 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:13:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Speaking for myself: no I do not support a framework which shuts out non-governmental actors. (duhh) I did hope, and still do, that the Internet Governance Caucus of Civil Society will be able to play off the Wikileaks controversy to draw attention to... 1) the significance of Internet Governance 2) the role of the IGC in IG and 3) the merits of discussing a broader framework or Framework across all stakeholders, for IG. I personally advised against trying to get into specifics too much of WikiLeaks case which can be interpreted variously by members of IGC; and specifically against the phrase 'content regulation' which you can see sets off EFF and other's alarm bells and could easily be counter-spun by those suggesting we wish to make it easier for government censorship to now become inter-governmental censorship. Since we seem able to agree on 1), and sort of 2), but not so much 3) by tomorrow, my suggestion for David A is to focus his own remarks on 1 and 2, while of course disapproving the CSTD's exclusionary moves on which we all agree. Jeremy's suggestion that he may issue a longer (1-pg) statement in his personal capacity, while identifying himself as co-coordinator of IGC (for identification purposes only ; ), is of course up to him; and I appreciate his courtesy in permitting us to comment on his drafts. In fact I'll share some media contacts with him...in my personal capacity, to get his words out, whatever they are. I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. But we can carry on one way or another. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 5:04 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks McTim wrote: Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its development, would you all still be in favor of said framework building? McTim Since you again insist on a reply in a second email, i will reply, and also explain why i did not respond earlier. My response is also hypothetical, to your hypothetical question, since I do not support silent acceptance of less than perfect governance structures. My response is in form of a counter question - will you like to live without any government at all, or will you accept an imperfect government, while keeping up all efforts to perfect it? McTim, either you are a complete anarchist or you have simply assumed that Internet and the new social structures being created by it are, somehow magically, a completely new space, completely unlike the world we know and live in, and thus needs no political governance (as we know political governance). I see such a position as very faulty at its very base, and thus am unable to respond meaningfully to questions that are built on this assumption. I can discuss this basic assumption and its fault with you, but no point otherwise arguing too much if we do not settle this basic, framing, issue. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sun Dec 12 11:18:25 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:18:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D04F5D1.1070900@eff.org> Those actions it seems to come from very young people. It's childish. No need to feed the troll. Ignore them, and it can damage the hacker / security researchers community. I have concerned of what is going to happen after wikileaks... A lot of content regulation .. *scary* Katitza On 12/12/10 8:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with this position. > > I am against the use of the word hackers. First the term is ambiguous, there have always been hackers ad mostly it was a good thing, it is the hackers who have made the network work in many cases. And there are also the hackers who do things that are sometimes considered negative. > > I also agree that we do not know that it is hackers that are doing the DDOS. At this point there are tools and services out there that would allow the most non-technical person to do a DDOS if they so wished. For all we know, these attacks may be the result of skiddie and script bunny activity. > > a. > > > On 12 Dec 2010, at 02:41, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Still the document will be read by governments. Para. 4 is not well drafted. While EFF does not condem DDoS attacks to any of both sides, as speech should be fight with more speech. Many others (not me) believe that those attacks are also political speech/civil disobedience. As Magagin 2006 said: "While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against." In any case, I personally do not like the way it is framed. You should not use the word hackers. Those DDoS attacks were made by who knows! >> >> >> PRESS RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS >> Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC >> PRESS RELEASE >> >> HACKER MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS >> >> New York, NY, December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal for the hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking out against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for a spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part of the ongoing Wikileaks controversy. >> >> Denial of service attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and other corporations and entities have been underway for the last few days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these targets had previously taken some sort of action against the whistleblower website wikileaks.org and its affiliates. The media reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being behind these actions. While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against. >> >> These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. >> >> What the above named corporations have done to Wikileaks is inexcusable and constitutes a different sort of denial of service attack, one that is designed to eliminate an organization, an individual, or an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can easily be made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals through these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes leaked information - and which has never been charged or convicted of a crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the place of credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or potential threat level of anyone, let alone those who are following in the long tradition of journalists and free speech advocates worldwide. >> >> The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new restrictions on the Internet, not to mention the fact that the exact same types of attacks can be used on "us" as well as "them." (Interestingly, it was only a week ago that "hackers" were blamed for denial of service attacks on Wikileaks itself. That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most importantly, these attacks are turning attention away from what is going on with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such immature and boorish activities any more than it helps the hacker community. From what we have been hearing over the past 24 hours, this is a viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By uniting our voices, speaking out against this sort of action, and correcting every media account we see and hear that associates hackers with these attacks, we stand a good chance of educating the public, rather than enflaming their fears and assumptions. >> >> There are a number of positive steps people - both inside and outside of the hacker community - can take to support Wikileaks and help spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem. >> >> 2600 Magazine has been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, about, and for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 by the Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and thus became the first test case of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by linking to their existing website through wikileaks.2600.com. We've already changed where this address points to twice as Wikileaks sites have been taken down, and will continue to ensure that this link always manages to get to wherever Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link and support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is being publicized on their site. >> >> ### >> >> CONTACT: >> 2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY >> webmaster at 2600.com >> Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor >> Emmanuel at goldste.in >> www.2600.com >> +1 631 751 2600 >> >> >> On 12/11/10 10:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in a submission to the United Nations. BTW, the hacker community is not involve in those attacks. You should be careful. The hacker community (who does legal things) "freedom to tinker" has issued a press release about it. See: 600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037 In any case, I think, that paragrahp does not add anything in a submission to the UN, and it can be not well understood by Government officials. >>> >>> Finally, I would apologize but I am not sure if I will be able to get comments from my organization for this submission for this tight deadline. However, I will do my best to see if I am able to do it within your deadline. >>> >>> All the best, Katitza >>> >>> >>> On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable fashion. >>> >> >> -- >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 avri at acm.org Sun Dec 12 11:31:35 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:31:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D04F5D1.1070900@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> <4D04F5D1.1070900@eff.org> Message-ID: <392715B4-B6D6-4AAD-A191-B0727F26408E@acm.org> Hi, On 12 Dec 2010, at 11:18, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > I have concerned of what is going to happen after wikileaks... A lot of content regulation .. *scary* Indeed. In fact the speed of the reaction almost seems as if they were waiting to pounce. Knowing that Wikileaks would leak again, even before the content was fully known they pounced as part of an agenda to curtail content. This is just one step in a much longer action of the powers-that-be to suppress any content they are not in favor of. Governments like the US and Sweden were concerned that China and others were outpacing them in content regulation and needed a cause to propel them forward in censorship's cause. On 12 Dec 2010, at 11:13, Lee W McKnight wrote: > but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. I agree. a. On 12 Dec 2010, at 11:18, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Those actions it seems to come from very young people. It's childish. No need to feed the troll. Ignore them, and it can damage the hacker / security researchers community. I have concerned of what is going to happen after wikileaks... A lot of content regulation .. *scary* > Katitza > > On 12/12/10 8:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I agree with this position. >> >> I am against the use of the word hackers. First the term is ambiguous, there have always been hackers ad mostly it was a good thing, it is the hackers who have made the network work in many cases. And there are also the hackers who do things that are sometimes considered negative. >> >> I also agree that we do not know that it is hackers that are doing the DDOS. At this point there are tools and services out there that would allow the most non-technical person to do a DDOS if they so wished. For all we know, these attacks may be the result of skiddie and script bunny activity. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 12 Dec 2010, at 02:41, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Still the document will be read by governments. Para. 4 is not well drafted. While EFF does not condem DDoS attacks to any of both sides, as speech should be fight with more speech. Many others (not me) believe that those attacks are also political speech/civil disobedience. As Magagin 2006 said: "While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against." In any case, I personally do not like the way it is framed. You should not use the word hackers. Those DDoS attacks were made by who knows! >>> >>> >>> PRESS RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS >>> Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC >>> PRESS RELEASE >>> >>> HACKER MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS >>> >>> New York, NY, December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal for the hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking out against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for a spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part of the ongoing Wikileaks controversy. >>> >>> Denial of service attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and other corporations and entities have been underway for the last few days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these targets had previously taken some sort of action against the whistleblower website wikileaks.org and its affiliates. The media reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being behind these actions. While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against. >>> >>> These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community. >>> >>> What the above named corporations have done to Wikileaks is inexcusable and constitutes a different sort of denial of service attack, one that is designed to eliminate an organization, an individual, or an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can easily be made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals through these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes leaked information - and which has never been charged or convicted of a crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the place of credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or potential threat level of anyone, let alone those who are following in the long tradition of journalists and free speech advocates worldwide. >>> >>> The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new restrictions on the Internet, not to mention the fact that the exact same types of attacks can be used on "us" as well as "them." (Interestingly, it was only a week ago that "hackers" were blamed for denial of service attacks on Wikileaks itself. That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most importantly, these attacks are turning attention away from what is going on with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such immature and boorish activities any more than it helps the hacker community. From what we have been hearing over the past 24 hours, this is a viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By uniting our voices, speaking out against this sort of action, and correcting every media account we see and hear that associates hackers with these attacks, we stand a good chance of educating the public, rather than enflaming their fears and assumptions. >>> >>> There are a number of positive steps people - both inside and outside of the hacker community - can take to support Wikileaks and help spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem. >>> >>> 2600 Magazine has been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, about, and for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 by the Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and thus became the first test case of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by linking to their existing website through wikileaks.2600.com. We've already changed where this address points to twice as Wikileaks sites have been taken down, and will continue to ensure that this link always manages to get to wherever Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link and support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is being publicized on their site. >>> >>> ### >>> >>> CONTACT: >>> 2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY >>> webmaster at 2600.com >>> Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor >>> Emmanuel at goldste.in >>> www.2600.com >>> +1 631 751 2600 >>> >>> >>> On 12/11/10 10:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in a submission to the United Nations. BTW, the hacker community is not involve in those attacks. You should be careful. The hacker community (who does legal things) "freedom to tinker" has issued a press release about it. See: 600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037 In any case, I think, that paragrahp does not add anything in a submission to the UN, and it can be not well understood by Government officials. >>>> >>>> Finally, I would apologize but I am not sure if I will be able to get comments from my organization for this submission for this tight deadline. However, I will do my best to see if I am able to do it within your deadline. >>>> >>>> All the best, Katitza >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable fashion. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 12:10:10 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:10:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Lee, On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…? I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it, handy tool, thanks Jeremy. 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 katitza at eff.org Sun Dec 12 12:17:52 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:17:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D0503C0.5000403@eff.org> I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: > Hi Lee, > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. > If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…? > > I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it, handy tool, thanks Jeremy. > > 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 -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Dec 12 12:42:29 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:42:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D0503C0.5000403@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D0503C0.5000403@eff.org> Message-ID: <91CF96AB-21E1-4CB8-9FBE-C3B70B8D8258@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Katitza, On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information? It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body. Best, Bill > > > On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: >> Hi Lee, >> >> On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. >> If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…? >> >> I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it, handy tool, thanks Jeremy. >> >> 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 > > > -- > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.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 katitza at eff.org Sun Dec 12 12:49:14 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:49:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <91CF96AB-21E1-4CB8-9FBE-C3B70B8D8258@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D0503C0.5000403@eff.org> <91CF96AB-21E1-4CB8-9FBE-C3B70B8D8258@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D050B1A.40409@eff.org> Hi William, We already have international instruments that protects freedom of expression. It sets precedents of what it can be disclosed. Why we need new rules? Can you explain me? As Frank La Rue said: ""If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak, and not of the media that publish it." Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm " Amnesty International: "On the leaking of national defence information: While employees of a government have the right to freedom of expression, they also have duties as an employee, so a government has more scope to impose restrictions on ...its employees than it would have for private individuals who receive or republish information. However, Amnesty International would be concerned if a government were to seek to punish a person who, for reasons of conscience, released in a responsible manner information that they reasonably believed to be evidence of human rights violations that the government was attempting to keep secret in order to prevent the public learning the truth about the violations." http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09 Katitza > Hi Katitza, > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm > > Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information? It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > >> >> On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: >>> Hi Lee, >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>>> I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. >>> If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc...? >>> >>> I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it, handy tool, thanks Jeremy. >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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 > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 12:46:40 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:46:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill, The connection is that there is now a strong perception on the part of "the powers that be" that "things are out of control" (see as an example the various types of reactions to what are evidently quite technically trivial attacks by "Anonymous" e.g. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1f596aa4-048d-11e0-a99c-00144feabdc0.html) and presumably the follow-on of "something needs to be done"! So the question is "what will be done" by whom, and under what authority? I think the argument here is that we (?) should get in soon with some sort of suggested approach to a broad governance framework because the "powers that be" will be feverishly working on their approach and it will emerge very quickly and very forcefully. How much detail one would/could articulate in such a statement from us (?) is questionable given time, attention, differences of perspective but getting something out there at least as a sort of marker would seem to me to be imperative. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Drake William Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 9:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks Hi Lee, On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to > comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally > would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, > itself. If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc.? I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it, handy tool, thanks Jeremy. 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= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 12 13:27:15 2010 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:27:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] I added you as a friend on Quepasa.com In-Reply-To: <20101212060413.2437.1246648738.swift@CHA-ME-003> Message-ID: <999793.94841.qm@web114514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Thanks! Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E., Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc. Reliance Advisor No.20095240;  Tel: 91-821-2342612; Mob: 094818 14418. Visiting Professor, JSS University, Mysore; Life Member, MCC & Industries/APFS/AMI/NSI/AFST(I)/ISTD,etc. --- On Sun, 12/12/10, vivek misra wrote: From: vivek misra Subject: [governance] I added you as a friend on Quepasa.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, December 12, 2010, 11:33 AM Quepasa.com #yiv1911998838 {display:block;} Quepasa Alerts Click here to unsubscribe.   I’d like to be your friend on Quepasa.com. Would you like to add me as a friend? Yes No Thanks! vivek misra To prevent from getting anymore email notifications from your friends on Quepasa.com, click here. Unsubscribe I Terms of Use I Privacy Policy I Support Quepasa Corporation 324 Datura Street, Suite 114, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 You are receiving this message because your friend is a registered member of Quepasa. Add info at quepasa.com to your contact list so you always receive your Quepasa email. -----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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 13:54:42 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:54:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D050B1A.40409@eff.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D0503C0.5000403@eff.org> <91CF96AB-21E1-4CB8-9FBE-C3B70B8D8258@graduateinstitute.ch> <4D050B1A.40409@eff.org> Message-ID: <3EDF6E85-2E68-4BDD-B18D-B40A5AE80048@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi William, > > We already have international instruments that protects freedom of expression. It sets precedents of what it can be disclosed. Why we need new rules? Can you explain me? There's a draft IGC text saying that this case shows we need a new framework of principles to guide global IG, which presumably would affect such things, so I asked why how what do people have in mind. You replied you were thinking of the HRC. The HRC is a deliberative body, populated by China, Saudi Arabia et al, that is supposed to make recommendations to the General Assembly. So I assumed you meant the HRC should make recommendations on new principles per the draft IGC text. If instead you meant that the HRC could assess this as a freedom of expression case in accordance with existing international rights instruments and make recommendations, ok, but the same question applies: Which of the HRC's member governments could we expect to argue that case and make recs we'd find congenial? One would like to think that some would, but with classified national security information it could be a tough sell. In any event, a FOE majority seems unlikely, and even if one could be assembled, it's questionable whether HRC recs (not heretofore highly impactful AFAIK) would alter any behavior. It'd certainly be an interesting debate though, and I'd be happy to have it unfolding down the street from me. Prospects might be better in an international court setting with nominally independent judges and legal experts etc, rather than an intergovernmental negotiation body... > > As Frank La Rue said: ""If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak, and not of the media that publish it." Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm" Sure > > Amnesty International: "On the leaking of national defence information: While employees of a government have the right to freedom of expression, they also have duties as an employee, so a government has more scope to impose restrictions on ...its employees than it would have for private individuals who receive or republish information. However, Amnesty International would be concerned if a government were to seek to punish a person who, for reasons of conscience, released in a responsible manner information that they reasonably believed to be evidence of human rights violations that the government was attempting to keep secret in order to prevent the public learning the truth about the violations." http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09 By these criteria, Bradley Manning's in trouble. > On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > I think the argument here is that we (?) should get in soon with some sort > of suggested approach to a broad governance framework because the "powers > that be" will be feverishly working on their approach and it will emerge > very quickly and very forcefully. Neither half of this is very clear to me but I'm certainly open to persuasion… Cheers, Bill > >> Hi Katitza, >> >> On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. >> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm >> >> Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information? It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: >>>> Hi Lee, >>>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>>> >>>>> I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. >>>> If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…? >>>> >>>> I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it, handy tool, thanks Jeremy. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> > > > -- > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sun Dec 12 14:09:11 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:09:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <3EDF6E85-2E68-4BDD-B18D-B40A5AE80048@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D0503C0.5000403@eff.org> <91CF96AB-21E1-4CB8-9FBE-C3B70B8D8258@graduateinstitute.ch> <4D050B1A.40409@eff.org> <3EDF6E85-2E68-4BDD-B18D-B40A5AE80048@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D051DD7.4030803@eff.org> Hi Bill No. I am not interested in recommendations. We already have international instruments and international human rights courts. Any recommendation on this issue, at this point, will be to control content rather than to open it. This is a FoE case. This is how, I believe, is the right way and we should frame the discussion. Katitza > Hi > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Hi William, >> >> We already have international instruments that protects freedom of >> expression. It sets precedents of what it can be disclosed. Why we >> need new rules? Can you explain me? > > There's a draft IGC text saying that this case shows we need a new > framework of principles to guide global IG, which presumably would > affect such things, so I asked why how what do people have in mind. > You replied you were thinking of the HRC. The HRC is a deliberative > body, populated by China, Saudi Arabia et al, that is supposed to make > recommendations to the General Assembly. So I assumed you meant the > HRC should make recommendations on new principles per the draft IGC > text. If instead you meant that the HRC could assess this as a > freedom of expression case in accordance with existing international > rights instruments and make recommendations, ok, but the same question > applies: Which of the HRC's member governments could we expect to > argue that case and make recs we'd find congenial? One would like to > think that some would, but with classified national security > information it could be a tough sell. In any event, a FOE majority > seems unlikely, and even if one could be assembled, it's questionable > whether HRC recs (not heretofore highly impactful AFAIK) would alter > any behavior. It'd certainly be an interesting debate though, and I'd > be happy to have it unfolding down the street from me. Prospects > might be better in an international court setting with nominally > independent judges and legal experts etc, rather than an > intergovernmental negotiation body... > >> >> As Frank La Rue said: ""If there is a responsibility by leaking >> information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak, >> and not of the media that publish it." Frank La Rue, UN Special >> Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm >> " > > Sure >> >> Amnesty International: "On the leaking of national defence >> information: While employees of a government have the right to >> freedom of expression, they also have duties as an employee, so a >> government has more scope to impose restrictions on ...its employees >> than it would have for private individuals who receive or republish >> information. However, Amnesty International would be concerned if a >> government were to seek to punish a person who, for reasons of >> conscience, released in a responsible manner information that they >> reasonably believed to be evidence of human rights violations that >> the government was attempting to keep secret in order to prevent the >> public learning the truth about the violations." >> http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09 >> > > By these criteria, Bradley Manning's in trouble. > >> On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> >> I think the argument here is that we (?) should get in soon with some >> sort >> of suggested approach to a broad governance framework because the "powers >> that be" will be feverishly working on their approach and it will emerge >> very quickly and very forcefully. > > Neither half of this is very clear to me but I'm certainly open to > persuasion… > > Cheers, > > Bill > > >> >>> Hi Katitza, >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>> I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. >>> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm >>> >>> Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information? It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: >>>>> Hi Lee, >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. >>>>> If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…? >>>>> >>>>> I've added other comments on the site; didn't knowdigress.it , handy tool, thanks Jeremy. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>> Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Sun Dec 12 15:06:34 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 20:06:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> <4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org> <4D047CC5.7010703@eff.org> Message-ID: <836E3F42-34D7-4950-914D-9D8F52A1589C@st-kilda.org> Hi On 12 Dec 2010, at 16:04, Avri Doria wrote: > I agree with this position. > +1 with Avri & Katitza > I am against the use of the word hackers. First the term is ambiguous, there have always been hackers ad mostly it was a good thing, it is the hackers who have made the network work in many cases. And there are also the hackers who do things that are sometimes considered negative. > Hacker is a longstanding term of respect for technical prowess, you are looking for words like Cracker or Black Hat. > I also agree that we do not know that it is hackers that are doing the DDOS. At this point there are tools and services out there that would allow the most non-technical person to do a DDOS if they so wished. For all we know, these attacks may be the result of skiddie and script bunny activity. The operational evidence of these DDOS attacks is that it random members of the online community that are running them, not even Script Kiddies, these are just people who are upset and members of the general public. Similar to the rioting students in London, England in the last couple of weeks. They are definitely not Hackers in either the traditional sense of the word or the abused inaccurate version. Please do not present this document as an IGC Statement as it currently stands. It would be helpful if planning on using new tools if we could at least have the initial draft posted to the mailing list as we don't all have the benefit of being online all the time. So including the draft in the email enables people to at least review offline and to provide feedback via email if necessary. Thanks Fearghas____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 15:43:14 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:43:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> <4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > > McTim wrote: > > Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, > > > > I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if > the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). > > If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" > of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its > development, would you all still be in favor of said framework > building? > > > > > McTim > > Since you again insist on a reply in a second email, it was merely a gentle reminder, I wasn't insisting. > > My response is also hypothetical, to your hypothetical question, since I do > not support silent acceptance of less than perfect governance structures. > > My response is in form of a counter question - will you like to live without > any government at all, or will you accept an imperfect government, while > keeping up all efforts to perfect it? Since I haven't established a micro-state of my own, I think the answer is clear. > > McTim, either you are a complete anarchist or you have simply assumed that > Internet Why is it either/or? and the new social structures being created by it are, somehow > magically, There is nothing magical about TCP/IP. a completely new space, completely unlike the world we know and > live in, and thus needs no political governance (as we know political > governance). I would say "CAN HAVE NO political governance as we know it, not "needs no..." If the net were to have political governance as we know it, it wouldn't survive (in the same form as we have come to depend on it). > I see such a position as very faulty at its very base as I see your "let's ask the adults to make our decisions for us" attitude as nonsensical. , and thus > am unable to respond meaningfully to questions that are built on this > assumption. I can discuss this basic assumption and its fault with you, but > no point otherwise arguing too much if we do not settle this basic, framing, > issue. I think we just have to agree to disagree. -- 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 Sun Dec 12 15:47:26 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:47:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <3EDF6E85-2E68-4BDD-B18D-B40A5AE80048@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D049E16.8040206@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D0503C0.5000403@eff.org> <91CF96AB-21E1-4CB8-9FBE-C3B70B8D8258@graduateinstitute.ch> <4D050B1A.40409@eff.org>,<3EDF6E85-2E68-4BDD-B18D-B40A5AE80048@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F44@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I will try again to clarify my position. I believe we can agree that: 1) The general public worldwide has never heard of 'Internet Governance.' 2) 'WikiLeaks' now has high global...name recognition. >From a branding/marketing perspective, 2) is doing great, 1) not so much. If IG(C) can't take advantage of present circumstance to teach the media and the public to say 'The handling of WikiLeaks is an Internet governance issue'...well now I'm getting really depressed. In sum: We will clearly continue to argue about present and alternative future IG (f)(F)rameworks - which for marketing purposes is fine - as long as folks learn how to spell our (caucus) name correctly. Detailing what is or is not necessarily part of a future F(ramework) or (framework) is beyond the scope of the present media/marketing moment, and I won;t go there when we should be thinking marketing 101. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Drake William [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:54 PM To: katitza at eff.org Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks Hi On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Hi William, We already have international instruments that protects freedom of expression. It sets precedents of what it can be disclosed. Why we need new rules? Can you explain me? There's a draft IGC text saying that this case shows we need a new framework of principles to guide global IG, which presumably would affect such things, so I asked why how what do people have in mind. You replied you were thinking of the HRC. The HRC is a deliberative body, populated by China, Saudi Arabia et al, that is supposed to make recommendations to the General Assembly. So I assumed you meant the HRC should make recommendations on new principles per the draft IGC text. If instead you meant that the HRC could assess this as a freedom of expression case in accordance with existing international rights instruments and make recommendations, ok, but the same question applies: Which of the HRC's member governments could we expect to argue that case and make recs we'd find congenial? One would like to think that some would, but with classified national security information it could be a tough sell. In any event, a FOE majority seems unlikely, and even if one could be assembled, it's questionable whether HRC recs (not heretofore highly impactful AFAIK) would alter any behavior. It'd certainly be an interesting debate though, and I'd be happy to have it unfolding down the street from me. Prospects might be better in an international court setting with nominally independent judges and legal experts etc, rather than an intergovernmental negotiation body... As Frank La Rue said: ""If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak, and not of the media that publish it." Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm" Sure Amnesty International: "On the leaking of national defence information: While employees of a government have the right to freedom of expression, they also have duties as an employee, so a government has more scope to impose restrictions on ...its employees than it would have for private individuals who receive or republish information. However, Amnesty International would be concerned if a government were to seek to punish a person who, for reasons of conscience, released in a responsible manner information that they reasonably believed to be evidence of human rights violations that the government was attempting to keep secret in order to prevent the public learning the truth about the violations." http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09 By these criteria, Bradley Manning's in trouble. On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: I think the argument here is that we (?) should get in soon with some sort of suggested approach to a broad governance framework because the "powers that be" will be feverishly working on their approach and it will emerge very quickly and very forcefully. Neither half of this is very clear to me but I'm certainly open to persuasion… Cheers, Bill Hi Katitza, On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information? It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body. Best, Bill On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: Hi Lee, On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…? I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it, handy tool, thanks Jeremy. 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 -- 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -- 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.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 ca at cafonso.ca Sun Dec 12 17:03:24 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 20:03:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0546AC.4030006@cafonso.ca> Me too! :) --c.a. On 12/12/2010 03:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Must say I am hugely more attracted to Parminders wording than the longer > text under discussion from Jeremy. > > > > > > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:15:55 +0530 > To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks > > Hi Jeremy > > I and my organization will support the statement. We need to use the > Wikileak affair to jolt ourselves out of complacency, and the vain > techno-fascinated hope that the myriad global internet issues will resolve > by themselves, which is what has landed us in the jungle law mess (apologies > to the feelings of Ian about nature, jungles and human beings :)) where > power is exercised in illegal means used in wikileaks affair, and not, to > the extent it is required to be used, in a sound politically legitimate > manner. > > The statement is well written. Jeremy, can you post the text as it stands on > the list. Some of these online means may be more efficient, and we shd use > them by and by, but I understand that some people here still, by habit, > would like to see the texts of proposed statements in this elist. And also > an open discussion, suggestions for changes etc is very useful (the process > of public reasoning) as against private changes to the texts in an online > space. (We need to use a mix of two, but that for later). > > While I will like the full statement to be used, it is also possible that > David uses a smaller version. Something like (i am sure the following could > be improved a lot) > >> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global Internet >> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of political and >> commercial power. There are two clear problems with this approach of using >> backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be abused, as in >> our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. Second, in possible >> cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some urgent global >> governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps even >> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom levels of >> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some >> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not available >> to less powerful political players or countries. This situation bespeaks a >> democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic principles and >> institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, which is the >> urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation should >> address itself to. " > parminder > > > > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> On 11/12/2010, at 5:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Those who haven't commented on the Wikileaks statement yet but plan to, >>> please visit http://igf-online.net/digress.it/ latest today or tomorrow. >>> David Allen is copying some materials to take to the Enhanced Cooperation >>> consultation and will need this ready by Monday morning. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Check back again now and you'll see revision marks for the changes I've made >> in response to the comments so far. Of course, some of the comments are >> mutually contradictory so I haven't been able to incorporate all of them. >> Final comments can be made within the next 24 hours. Because we won't >> however have time for a formal consensus call on this before David needs it, I >> feel that we cannot call it a consensus statement, so I propose just putting >> my own name to it as IGC co-coordinator. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> 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 >> > t1stParentNodeID=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 > > -- Carlos A. Afonso ==================================== 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 Sun Dec 12 18:53:12 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:53:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Review of the Pacific Digital Strategy Link Message-ID: Dear All, In case anyone is interested, kindly find the link for the Review of the Pacific Digital Strategy. It would help others in understanding some of the challenges that countries in the region face. http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Review%20of%20Digital%20Strategy_PartA.pdf Warm Regards, Sala -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Dec 12 19:17:12 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 02:17:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] I added you as a friend on Quepasa.com In-Reply-To: <999793.94841.qm@web114514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <20101212060413.2437.1246648738.swift@CHA-ME-003> <999793.94841.qm@web114514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, I for one, would appreciate if people would stop posting to their entire list!!!!!!!!!!! Vivek, do you always treat everybody the same like this? From your 7-year old niece to to professional contacts??? Strange!!!!!!!!!!! Rui 2010/12/12 Keshava Nireshwalia > Thanks! > > Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E., > Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc. > Reliance Advisor No.20095240; Tel: 91-821-2342612; Mob: 094818 14418. > Visiting Professor, JSS University, Mysore; > Life Member, MCC & Industries/APFS/AMI/NSI/AFST(I)/ISTD,etc. > > --- On *Sun, 12/12/10, vivek misra * wrote: > > > From: vivek misra > Subject: [governance] I added you as a friend on Quepasa.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Sunday, December 12, 2010, 11:33 AM > > > [image: Quepasa.com] > *Click here*to unsubscribe. > > > > I’d like to be your friend on Quepasa.com. > > Would you like to addme as a friend? > > Yes > No > > Thanks! > > vivek misra > > > To prevent from getting anymore email notifications from your friends on > Quepasa.com, click here > . > UnsubscribeI Terms > of UseI Privacy > PolicyI > Support > Quepasa Corporation 324 Datura Street, Suite 114, West Palm Beach, FL, > 33401 > You are receiving this message because your friend is a registered member > of Quepasa. > Add info at quepasa.com to your > contact list so you always receive your Quepasa email. > > -----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 > -- _________________________ 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 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 12 21:54:31 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:54:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D0471EE.1080008@itforchange.net> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D0471EE.1080008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008E9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Parminder In the existing political context, where nation-states dominate governance and seem to be intent on not allowing the rest of us to participate in it, then YES, no government is better than an imperfect government. Decentralization of power among states has two virtues: it creates checks and balances among states, and it creates certain power vacuums which can be filled either through new institutions or through self-governance activities on the distributed internet. As one of the people who originated the call for a Framework Convention during the WSIS, I feel we have to draw back from that at the present time. ACTA, the increasingly reactionary US govt role in CIR governance, cyberwar and "cyber-security," the Tunis Agenda's fallacious attempt to reserve "public policy" for nation-states, and the current anti-MS moves of the UN/CSTD all make it clear that states are not reliable or productive partners in any effort to build democratic global governance. To call for a negotiated convention, treaty or framework _in the context of the UN_ - an entity that still has debates about whether the people should even be allowed to participate in its deliberations, is crazy if one expects the outcome of such a negotiation to preserve or enhance the freedom of the internet and the rights of the people using it. Those negotiations will be all about the interests of states. Indeed, after reading Jeremy's statement on Wikileaks it became clear to me that IGC needs to have a debate about tactics and strategy along these lines. --MM From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:55 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks McTim wrote: Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework" of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its development, would you all still be in favor of said framework building? McTim, Also entirely a hypothetical response (framed as a question) bec I do not support a simple acceptance of the imperfect governance structure presented in my response. Would you like to live without a government at all, or with a government that is not perfect, while keeping up all efforts to perfect it. Either you are completely anarchist, or you have simply decided that the Internet and the new social paradigm shaped by the Internet is somehow, magically, a territory completely different from the world we live in and have known and it requires no political governance. This assumption of a large number of what often gets called as the technical community (though I never understood the real meaning of this term) is to me so basically faulty that it is difficult to engage with questions raised upon it, which, without meaning any disrespect, is the nature of most of your questions to me. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 12 21:59:42 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:59:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net>,<6D3AE8D4-DB48-4174-A1B6-FA8821EFA521@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008EA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> This is a good statement, Jeremy, and I have no objection to you publishing it. I cannot lend my full support to it because of the next to the last paragraph; I don't think the Tunis agenda really did call for a framework of the sort you are describing. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:02 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks On 12/12/2010, at 1:45 PM, parminder wrote: The statement is well written. Jeremy, can you post the text as it stands on the list. Some of these online means may be more efficient, and we shd use them by and by, but I understand that some people here still, by habit, would like to see the texts of proposed statements in this elist. The recent publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables by Wikileaks has produced an extremist reaction by some governments, provoking them and compliant large corporations to strike out at the organisation's Web site, its financial base, and the person of its founder, Julian Assange. For the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), this highlights the need for cross-border Internet governance issues to be made a subject to a due process of law, informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights. In its early days, the Internet was a model of decentralised, voluntary self-governance. When Internet content abuses occurred – for example by posting of spam to newsgroups – the community would respond with its own social and technical countermeasures. Into this self-regulated domain, governments have since stepped. Some, for example, have passed laws to control spam, which with varying effectiveness now supplement – but do not supplant – the social and technical means by which the Internet community continues to self-govern. But because of the Internet's inherently trans-border architecture, the uncoordinated application of national laws is rarely adequate for the regulation of Internet content. More importantly, because individual governments do not represent trans-border communities, the attempted use of such laws to control global flows of Internet content is not democratically legitimate. Still less legitimate by far is their arbitrary and extra-legal use of political and economic power, as we have seen directed against Wikileaks. This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the retributive attacks of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable fashion. What is needed is a framework of principles for Internet governance, which would guide all stakeholders in dealing with trans-border issues such as Internet content regulation, and provide democratic accountability and mechanisms of redress. This framework would comply with existing human rights standards including the rule of law, and be developed through an open, democratic process inclusive of all stakeholders from government, the private sector, and civil society. It so happens that this is exactly what the IGC has been calling for since about 2003. It is also what WSIS, a global summit of governments, called for in 2005 when directing the United Nations Secretary General to start a "process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders" (Tunis Agenda para 71) to address the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68). What is perhaps most scandalous about the Wikileaks case is that it has taken a global diplomatic crisis to turn the international community's attention back to what it committed to achieve five years ago. The IGC hopes that it doesn't take another five years before this enhanced global democratic framework of governance for the Internet finally takes shape. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Dec 12 22:40:49 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:40:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Final IGC statement on Wikileaks Message-ID: <6143F7AD-8506-472C-B7D4-741D65E6D336@ciroap.org> I've processed all the further comments, which are reflected below where possible, and this is the version that David will have to take when he runs off to the copy shop this morning. To see revision marks and responsive comments, check back at http://igf-online.net/digress.it. Because we don't have time for a formal consensus call, I've signed off on it as an individual co-coordinator, but included links back to the IGC Web site where our consensus statements on this and related topics can be found. A couple of people said they preferred what Parminder wrote in a single paragraph, but as suggested by Louis, they are really for different purposes and what Parminder wrote can be incorporated into what David says orally (though I don't know exactly what David will say). As Milton has most recently suggested, there should be an ongoing conversation about our strategy on enhanced cooperation and multi-stakeholderism, in the light not only of Wikileaks but also our shoddy treatment by the UN at all turns since the Vilnius IGF meeting. I propose that this should be led by the strategy working group. While our three working groups (strategy, workplan and outreach) have been rather inactive, Izumi and I have been in discussion with volunteer coordinators for each group, and we intend that they will become more productive soon. Anyway, without further ado, the revised text on Wikileaks: --- begins --- The recent publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables by Wikileaks has produced an extremist reaction by some governments, provoking them and compliant large corporations to strike out at the organisation's Web site, its financial base, and the person of its founder, Julian Assange. For the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), this highlights the need for cross-border Internet governance issues to be made subject to a due process of law, informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights. In its early days, the Internet was a model of decentralised, voluntary self-governance. When Internet content abuses occurred – for example by posting of spam to newsgroups – the community would respond with its own social and technical countermeasures. Into this self-regulated domain, governments have since stepped. Some, for example, have passed laws to control spam, which with varying effectiveness now supplement – but do not supplant – the social and technical means by which the Internet community continues to self-govern. But because of the Internet's inherently trans-border architecture, the uncoordinated application of national laws is rarely adequate for the regulation of Internet content. More importantly, because individual governments do not represent trans-border communities, the attempted use of such laws to control global flows of Internet content is not democratically legitimate. Still less legitimate by far is their arbitrary and extra-legal use of political and economic power, as we have seen directed against Wikileaks. This is not to say that the Internet community's governance methods are necessarily any more legitimate; far from it, in the case of the retributive anonymous attacks against those who targeted Wikileaks. In truth governments, business, and Internet users alike have responded to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable fashion. What is needed is a framework of principles for Internet governance, which would guide all stakeholders in dealing with trans-border issues such as Internet content regulation, and provide democratic accountability and mechanisms of redress. This framework would comply with existing human rights standards including the rule of law, and be developed through an open, democratic process fully inclusive of all stakeholders from civil society, the private sector and government. It so happens that the IGC has been calling for something like this for years. WSIS, a global summit of governments, also called for something similar in 2005 when directing the United Nations Secretary General to start a "process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders" (Tunis Agenda para 71) to address the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68). What is perhaps most sad about the Wikileaks case is that it has taken a global diplomatic crisis to turn the international community's attention back to what it committed to achieve five years ago. The IGC hopes that it doesn't take another five years before this enhanced global democratic framework of governance for the Internet finally takes shape. --- ends --- -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Dec 13 01:48:19 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 07:48:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008E9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D0471EE.1080008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008E9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <57DD7A50-3A54-477E-903B-45FF8F48F66E@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Milton On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > As one of the people who originated the call for a Framework Convention during the WSIS, I feel we have to draw back from that at the present time. ACTA, the increasingly reactionary US govt role in CIR governance, cyberwar and "cyber-security," the Tunis Agenda's fallacious attempt to reserve "public policy" for nation-states, and the current anti-MS moves of the UN/CSTD all make it clear that states are not reliable or productive partners in any effort to build democratic global governance. To call for a negotiated convention, treaty or framework _in the context of the UN_ - an entity that still has debates about whether the people should even be allowed to participate in its deliberations, is crazy if one expects the outcome of such a negotiation to preserve or enhance the freedom of the internet and the rights of the people using it. Those negotiations will be all about the interests of states. As one of the people who said this during WSIS (and took some heat for it), I'm not entirely clear on your shift. It was already the case then that governments and firms wanted strong agreements on IPR and security and were asserting singular roles in public policy, and that the breadth and depth of real commitment to multistakeholderism had limits. And there were all the structural problems, like sharp disagreements among blocs of countries that made a winning coalition for meaningful text impossible, the lack of a viable forum and the likely inter-organizational reactions to any cross-cutting instrument, the difficulty of translating very high level principles down into the workings of myriad and constitutionally different governance mechanisms, and so on. The FC's problems were and are foundational and intrinsic, rather than being a function of the historical moment. Which goes also to the question of what is sensible to advocate now with respect to EC... 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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Mon Dec 13 03:14:31 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:14:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <57DD7A50-3A54-477E-903B-45FF8F48F66E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: I agree that a framework convention is not usefull for the reasons described. But a framework of principles approach, elaborated in a multi-stake holder way and based on human rights like FoE can bring together work already under way and focus attention on the need to provide orientation and guidance. Wolfgang Benedek Am 13.12.10 07:48 schrieb "Drake William" unter : > Hi Milton > > On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> As one of the people who originated the call for a Framework Convention >> during the WSIS, I feel we have to draw back from that at the present time. >> ACTA, the increasingly reactionary US govt role in CIR governance, cyberwar >> and "cyber-security," the Tunis Agenda's fallacious attempt to reserve >> "public policy" for nation-states, and the current anti-MS moves of the >> UN/CSTD all make it clear that states are not reliable or productive partners >> in any effort to build democratic global governance. To call for a negotiated >> convention, treaty or framework _in the context of the UN_ - an entity that >> still has debates about whether the people should even be allowed to >> participate in its deliberations, is crazy if one expects the outcome of such >> a negotiation to preserve or enhance the freedom of the internet and the >> rights of the people using it. Those negotiations will be all about the >> interests of states. > > As one of the people who said this during WSIS (and took some heat for it), > I'm not entirely clear on your shift. It was already the case then that > governments and firms wanted strong agreements on IPR and security and were > asserting singular roles in public policy, and that the breadth and depth of > real commitment to multistakeholderism had limits. And there were all the > structural problems, like sharp disagreements among blocs of countries that > made a winning coalition for meaningful text impossible, the lack of a viable > forum and the likely inter-organizational reactions to any cross-cutting > instrument, the difficulty of translating very high level principles down into > the workings of myriad and constitutionally different governance mechanisms, > and so on. The FC's problems were and are foundational and intrinsic, rather > than being a function of the historical moment. Which goes also to the > question of what is sensible to advocate now with respect to EC... > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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.benedek at uni-graz.at Mon Dec 13 03:27:08 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:27:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <4D051DD7.4030803@eff.org> Message-ID: Why not involve the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank LaRue, who was with us in the last two IGFs and is preparing a report with a focus on FoE in the Internet anyway? Regards Wolfgang Benedek Am 12.12.10 20:09 schrieb "Katitza Rodriguez" unter : Hi Bill No. I am not interested in recommendations. We already have international instruments and international human rights courts. Any recommendation on this issue, at this point, will be to control content rather than to open it. This is a FoE case. This is how, I believe, is the right way and we should frame the discussion. Katitza Hi On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Hi William, We already have international instruments that protects freedom of expression. It sets precedents of what it can be disclosed. Why we need new rules? Can you explain me? There's a draft IGC text saying that this case shows we need a new framework of principles to guide global IG, which presumably would affect such things, so I asked why how what do people have in mind. You replied you were thinking of the HRC. The HRC is a deliberative body, populated by China, Saudi Arabia et al, that is supposed to make recommendations to the General Assembly. So I assumed you meant the HRC should make recommendations on new principles per the draft IGC text. If instead you meant that the HRC could assess this as a freedom of expression case in accordance with existing international rights instruments and make recommendations, ok, but the same question applies: Which of the HRC's member governments could we expect to argue that case and make recs we'd find congenial? One would like to think that some would, but with classified national security information it could be a tough sell. In any event, a FOE majority seems unlikely, and even if one could be assembled, it's questionable whether HRC recs (not heretofore highly impactful AFAIK) would alter any behavior. It'd certainly be an interesting debate though, and I'd be happy to have it unfolding down the street from me. Prospects might be better in an international court setting with nominally independent judges and legal experts etc, rather than an intergovernmental negotiation body... As Frank La Rue said: ""If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak, and not of the media that publish it." Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm " Sure Amnesty International: "On the leaking of national defence information: While employees of a government have the right to freedom of expression, they also have duties as an employee, so a government has more scope to impose restrictions on ...its employees than it would have for private individuals who receive or republish information. However, Amnesty International would be concerned if a government were to seek to punish a person who, for reasons of conscience, released in a responsible manner information that they reasonably believed to be evidence of human rights violations that the government was attempting to keep secret in order to prevent the public learning the truth about the violations." http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09 By these criteria, Bradley Manning's in trouble. On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: I think the argument here is that we (?) should get in soon with some sort of suggested approach to a broad governance framework because the "powers that be" will be feverishly working on their approach and it will emerge very quickly and very forcefully. Neither half of this is very clear to me but I'm certainly open to persuasion… Cheers, Bill Hi Katitza, On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information? It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body. Best, Bill On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: Hi Lee, On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…? I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it , handy tool, thanks Jeremy. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Dec 13 07:56:05 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:56:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Dec 17 meeting - who will participate? Message-ID: Hi, Who are going to participate on Dec 17 CSTD open consultation meeting on the IGF from IGC members? I will arrive on Dec 15 late evening and will attend CSTD meeting on Dec 16, and/or have some meeting with those gov and biz folks who joined the letter of protest on the formation of IGF WG. Please let me know and coordinate our actions. best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Mon Dec 13 08:31:02 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:31:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <4D051DD7.4030803@eff.org> Message-ID: <069001cb9aca$04d0dfa0$0e729ee0$@net> Hi Wolfgang, Involving Frank La Rue is a great idea. His report to HRC is due in June and currently he is running various regional consultations. This issue can make an essential part of his report. All of us can lobby for that too if need be. Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:27 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez; Drake William Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks Why not involve the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank LaRue, who was with us in the last two IGFs and is preparing a report with a focus on FoE in the Internet anyway? Regards Wolfgang Benedek Am 12.12.10 20:09 schrieb "Katitza Rodriguez" unter : Hi Bill No. I am not interested in recommendations. We already have international instruments and international human rights courts. Any recommendation on this issue, at this point, will be to control content rather than to open it. This is a FoE case. This is how, I believe, is the right way and we should frame the discussion. Katitza Hi On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Hi William, We already have international instruments that protects freedom of expression. It sets precedents of what it can be disclosed. Why we need new rules? Can you explain me? There's a draft IGC text saying that this case shows we need a new framework of principles to guide global IG, which presumably would affect such things, so I asked why how what do people have in mind. You replied you were thinking of the HRC. The HRC is a deliberative body, populated by China, Saudi Arabia et al, that is supposed to make recommendations to the General Assembly. So I assumed you meant the HRC should make recommendations on new principles per the draft IGC text. If instead you meant that the HRC could assess this as a freedom of expression case in accordance with existing international rights instruments and make recommendations, ok, but the same question applies: Which of the HRC's member governments could we expect to argue that case and make recs we'd find congenial? One would like to think that some would, but with classified national security information it could be a tough sell. In any event, a FOE majority seems unlikely, and even if one could be assembled, it's questionable whether HRC recs (not heretofore highly impactful AFAIK) would alter any behavior. It'd certainly be an interesting debate though, and I'd be happy to have it unfolding down the street from me. Prospects might be better in an international court setting with nominally independent judges and legal experts etc, rather than an intergovernmental negotiation body... As Frank La Rue said: ""If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak, and not of the media that publish it." Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm " Sure Amnesty International: "On the leaking of national defence information: While employees of a government have the right to freedom of expression, they also have duties as an employee, so a government has more scope to impose restrictions on ...its employees than it would have for private individuals who receive or republish information. However, Amnesty International would be concerned if a government were to seek to punish a person who, for reasons of conscience, released in a responsible manner information that they reasonably believed to be evidence of human rights violations that the government was attempting to keep secret in order to prevent the public learning the truth about the violations." http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression- 2010-12-09 By these criteria, Bradley Manning's in trouble. On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: I think the argument here is that we (?) should get in soon with some sort of suggested approach to a broad governance framework because the "powers that be" will be feverishly working on their approach and it will emerge very quickly and very forcefully. Neither half of this is very clear to me but I'm certainly open to persuasion. Cheers, Bill Hi Katitza, On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue. But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information? It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body. Best, Bill On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote: Hi Lee, On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself. If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance. Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers. What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon? Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc.? I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it , handy tool, thanks Jeremy. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 13 10:12:44 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:12:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <57DD7A50-3A54-477E-903B-45FF8F48F66E@graduateinstitute.ch>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F47@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Agreed. The assumption that an Internet 'framework of principles' must be elaborated in same way as past UN-initiated frameworks I never agreed with. That it will take - years - even decades - to sort out, has also been obvious at least to me all along, and is what I repeatedly stated way back when. That significant actors in various nation-states find the Internet of 2010 - discomfitting - is also unsurprising. Still, a '2020' vision or 2050 plan or framework or (choose your preferred word which translates well into multiple languages), for where we would like to be heading towards could serve as a rallying point for a much broader swath of global civil society than IGC was able to reach....in the pre-Leaks era. In my always humble opinion. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:14 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Drake William; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks I agree that a framework convention is not usefull for the reasons described. But a framework of principles approach, elaborated in a multi-stake holder way and based on human rights like FoE can bring together work already under way and focus attention on the need to provide orientation and guidance. Wolfgang Benedek Am 13.12.10 07:48 schrieb "Drake William" unter : > Hi Milton > > On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> As one of the people who originated the call for a Framework Convention >> during the WSIS, I feel we have to draw back from that at the present time. >> ACTA, the increasingly reactionary US govt role in CIR governance, cyberwar >> and "cyber-security," the Tunis Agenda's fallacious attempt to reserve >> "public policy" for nation-states, and the current anti-MS moves of the >> UN/CSTD all make it clear that states are not reliable or productive partners >> in any effort to build democratic global governance. To call for a negotiated >> convention, treaty or framework _in the context of the UN_ - an entity that >> still has debates about whether the people should even be allowed to >> participate in its deliberations, is crazy if one expects the outcome of such >> a negotiation to preserve or enhance the freedom of the internet and the >> rights of the people using it. Those negotiations will be all about the >> interests of states. > > As one of the people who said this during WSIS (and took some heat for it), > I'm not entirely clear on your shift. It was already the case then that > governments and firms wanted strong agreements on IPR and security and were > asserting singular roles in public policy, and that the breadth and depth of > real commitment to multistakeholderism had limits. And there were all the > structural problems, like sharp disagreements among blocs of countries that > made a winning coalition for meaningful text impossible, the lack of a viable > forum and the likely inter-organizational reactions to any cross-cutting > instrument, the difficulty of translating very high level principles down into > the workings of myriad and constitutionally different governance mechanisms, > and so on. The FC's problems were and are foundational and intrinsic, rather > than being a function of the historical moment. Which goes also to the > question of what is sensible to advocate now with respect to EC... > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org Mon Dec 13 11:13:44 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:13:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership In-Reply-To: References: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> Message-ID: Just came in. According to the summary, CSTD made this with "clear majority" !! Only US Government made reservation to the decision. A clear majority with sloppy process, I would say. In reality, almost all those present were from Geneva-based permanent mission people, but of course their degree of involvement with and understanding of IGF and also contact with their capitals are highly questionable. A total of 18 member states joined this meeting: Argentina, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lesotho, Malaysia, Portugal, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland, USA Regional breakdown as follows: Africa 5/11 Asia 5/9 Eastern Europe 0/5 Latin America and Caribbean 2/8 Western Europe and other states 5/10 (region's total members added to the right side of the slash as denominator). "The all members of CSTD" are also only 43 countries elected by ECOSOC for a term of four years. See below. *Region* *Country* *End of term* *Africa* Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, and United Republic of Tanzania will become new members 1 January 2011 Burkina Faso 2010 Democratic Republic of Congo 2012 Equatorial Guinea 2012 Eritrea 2010 Ghana 2012 Lesotho 2014 Mali 2012 South Africa 2012 Sudan 2010 Tunisia 2014 Uganda 2010 *Asia* China 2014 India 2014 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2014 Jordan 2012 Malaysia 2010 Oman 2012 Pakistan 2012 Philippines 2014 Sri Lanka 2012 *Eastern Europe* Belarus 2010 Latvia 2014 Russian Federation 2012 Slovakia 2012 Bulgaria 2010 *Latin America and Caribbean* Peru will become a new member 1 January 2011 Argentina 2010 Brazil 2012 Chile 2012 Costa Rica 2012 Cuba 2014 Dominican Republic 2014 El Salvador 2014 Jamaica 2012 *Western Europe and other states* Austria 2012 Belgium 2010 Finland 2012 France 2010 Germany 2010 Israel 2012 Portugal 2012 Switzerland 2012 Turkey 2010 United States of America 2014 But Swiss CSTD Vice Chair maintains that this is a legitimate decision. Are there ways to let the same country make different choice if it is reconvened? Am not sure. What would be the most effective ways to reverse this decision? We need wisdom. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 2010/12/14 Subject: RE: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership To: graham at isoc.org ---------------- Dear Mr. Graham Thank you for your mails in which you express your concern about the decision on the composition of the Working Group of the Chair of the CSTD on IGF improvement. First of all, please let me correct you in the following: The meeting on Dec 6 was not a meeting of the Bureau of the CSTD, but it was a meeting to which all members of the CSTD were invited. Attached you find a summary of this meeting which has now been made publicly available on the CSTD website ( http://www.unctad.org/cstd).. As you can see in this summary, there was a very clear majority in that meeting that led to the decision which was taken. What the meeting of Dec. 17 in Geneva is concerned, this meeting is a part of the CSTD intersessional meeting and will be open not only to the members of the CSTD, but also to other states and to civil society and business representatives who have been accredited to WSIS. For other business entities not accredited to WSIS but wish to participate, please get in touch with the CSTD secretariat for further information. Thank you and best regards Frédéric Riehl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20101206 Summary of consultation CSTD members(final) mh.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43520 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 11:41:29 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:41:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership In-Reply-To: References: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Just came in. > > According to the summary, CSTD made this with "clear majority" !! Only US > Government made reservation to the decision. A clear majority with sloppy > process, I would say. > > In reality, almost all those present were from Geneva-based permanent > mission people, but of course their degree of involvement with and > understanding of IGF and also contact with their capitals are highly > questionable. > > A total of 18 member states joined this meeting: > > Argentina, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Israel, > Jordan, Lesotho, Malaysia, Portugal, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland, > 3 of those countries have been IGF hosts. What's up with that? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Dec 13 12:01:18 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 02:01:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Dec 17 meeting - IGC statement print Message-ID: Dear list, I plan to distribute our statement with minor edit from the final version, as below. As we already saw the consensus, this is just to confirm. BUT if any friendly amendment is proposed, I can try to put it there before I print them tomorrow evening. Thanks, izumi Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Statement on the CSTD decision for the composition of the IGF Improvement WG that goes against Mulitistakeholder Principle 17 December 2010 Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey Chairperson UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development His Excellency Mr. Frederic Riehl, Vice Chairperson, UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl, Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process. We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since it has already been announced, we, the undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC resolution, for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We feel that the process undertaken violates principles of “openness and inclusion” which form the background to the entire IGF process. The overall approach to this important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and spirit. The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method. As the Chair’s Summary says: It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF. Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive manner” In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil society, business, and Internet technical community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will introduce a degree of delay in the overall process. We respectfully call for all government members with whom we have to date acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal. It is our feeling that this action might negatively impact the current ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner. We further ask that an approach be pursued that is satisfactory to all stakeholders. We hope that we may have misunderstood the significance of this decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been built among the stakeholders since WSIS. A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time. We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest. The Internet Governance Caucus Co-coordinators Jeremy Malcolm < Jeremy at ciroap.org> and Izumi Aizu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: IGCLetter_CSTDWG_Dec13.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34816 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 13 12:34:34 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:34:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Letter from stakeholders re: Working Group on Improvements to the IGF membership In-Reply-To: References: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 01:13:44 on Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes There has been a certain amount of "fog of war" surrounding the meetings of 6th December and 17th December. But based on Frederic's letter you quoted earlier, plus this summary on the website: http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs//cstd2010d08_en.pdf ...it seems that the Working Group *itself* will meet some time between 15th-17th, and be composed of 20 member states only. >Are there ways to let the same country make different choice if it is >reconvened? Am not sure. > >What would be the most effective ways to reverse this decision? We need >wisdom. But there is *also* a Consultation, open to Member States, ECOSOC consultative and WSIS accredited entities, on the 17th. This is consistent with the statement from Thomas Schneider at the IGF session in Cartagena that "everyone who can, should be there, and tell the CSTD Member states how they feel about this..." (recording @ 1:07:35) So the best thing to do would be to use that consultation meeting to express both the appropriate views on IGF reform, and also the fundamental composition of the Working Group. It might also be possible for a member state to raise the issue at the start of the session on the 15th. However, with the short period of time available to write the WG's report, and the opportunity for a 'proper' multistakeholder WG meeting this week having been denied, I feel that realistically the best outcome to be hoped for is some sort of "group of multistakeholder advisors" to attach themselves to the 20-member WG during 2011, somewhat in the style of the IGF Chair's "special advisors". If someone was going to propose that (and maybe canvass some member-state support for the idea) it would be handy to have some kind of shortlist of candidates for these positions. I'd suggest maybe 3+3+3 from Business, Civil Society and Technical Community. Other options could include: walking away from the whole thing, getting member states to force a complete re-think on the 15th despite the delay it will cause, and a focussed lobbying campaign directed at the 20 member countries to send representatives who are briefed with the multistakeholder view. ps We know 5 of the countries (ex-hosts) but don't know the other 15 yet. Perhaps they'll discuss that on the 15th as well. -- 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 Mon Dec 13 14:50:31 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:50:31 -0200 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! In-Reply-To: <4D03D5B2.6010409@eff.org> References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> <4D03D5B2.6010409@eff.org> Message-ID: Kat, I guess Graciela is doing BR Portuguese. bs --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 11/12/2010, at 17:49, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Thank you everyone. We will contact all of you in private. I am still seeking volunteers for Hindu, Bengali, Italian, French, Arabic, and Chinese. > Please send me a private note to katitza @ eff .org > > All the best, Katitza > > > On 12/11/10 11:29 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> I am available for Urdu and English proofreading and Urdu translations.... >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> sent using my iPad >> >> On 11 Dec 2010, at 07:22, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> Holas, >>> >>> Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us in a campaign to fight online censorship: https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would love your help to be able to reach out to the international communities to help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting online censorship. >>> >>> If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, though if you are interested we could also let you know about any future campaigns. >>> >>> We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and Spanish. We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish speakers to look at our translations. We would also like other languages. We are especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, and Arabic, but would appreciate many other languages as well! Please let us know if you can help. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 13 17:40:09 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:40:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Dave Winer calls for a Web Trust Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Rebecca MacKinnon Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:20 PM To: liberationtech Subject: [liberationtech] Dave Winer calls for a Web Trust http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/13/weNeedAWebTrustToPublishAn.html A Web Trust to publish and store our creative work By Dave Winer on Monday, December 13, 2010 at 12:09 PM. The discussion at this weekend's flash conf in NYC on WikiLeaks raised the question of where we can store our web writing and photos so that they are as safe as they possibly can be. Trusting corporations to manage this is obviously not a good idea. If this was theoretical before, it's now pragmatic, after Amazon cut off WikiLeaks. Permanent link to this item in the archive. That suggests that we need a new kind of institution that is is part news organization, university, library and foundation -- that acts as a guarantor of best-possible freedom from corporate and government limitations. We already know some things about this organization, I believe. Permanent link to this item in the archive. These are just back-of-the-envelope scribbles. Consider this a discussion-starter for the next meetup. Permanent link to this item in the archive. 1. It must be long-lived, like a university -- probably with an endowment, and a board of trustees, and operations limited to what's described below. It can't operate any other kind of business. Permanent link to this item in the archive. 2. It must create a least-common-denominator storage system that is accessible through HTTP. Everything must be done with open formats and protocols, meaning all components of its system are replaceable. Permanent link to this item in the archive. 3. It must cost money, so the user is a customer and is treated as one. This also allows the vendor to assume its own independence from the interests of the publisher who uses the system. The same way the operator of a printing press was not responsible for the words he or she printed on the paper. Permanent link to this item in the archive. 4. Simplicity of the user experience is primary so it can be accessible to as many as possible, and so that technical people don't provide yet another filter for the free flow of ideas. Factor and re-factor for simplicity. Permanent link to this item in the archive. 5. The trust must serve the bits exactly as they were published. No advertising. Permanent link to this item in the archive. That's where I want to pick up the discussion. Permanent link to this item in the archive. -- Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 13 18:40:09 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:40:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <57DD7A50-3A54-477E-903B-45FF8F48F66E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D0471EE.1080008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008E9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<57DD7A50-3A54-477E-903B-45FF8F48F66E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008F3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Bill I don't recall you making any such arguments during WSIS. I do recall you making some very thoughtful arguments to that effect at an IGF workshop (was it Athens or Rio?) at which point I began to consider those practical obstacles more seriously and eventually changed my own position. Remember that, during WSIS, we seemed to have the following positions in place: a) USG seemed to be resisting governmental intervention in Internet and strongly supporting MSism; this position has since been drastically curtailed and to some extent revealed as a facade; moreover, US and ISOC have resisted making IGF into a forum for such discussions and forum-shop relentlessly. b) France and other EU members were talking about "enhanced cooperation" or "global public policy principles", some of which (e.g., a commitment to end-to-end) were quite good and seemed to be putting pressure on the US to negotiate, in a MS environment, toward global governance principles. This appearance bubble popped as EU decided to work directly with US in pursuing its power-sharing goals over DNS c) Brazil, the most progressive of the developing countries, was openly talking of a framework convention, influenced directly by IGP's work. But it really never fully allied itself with civil society efforts on that agenda, even though it had the chance. It's also been interesting to see, in the "morality and public order" debates within ICANN, how even intergovernmental orgs allegedly devoted to free expression and human rights (e.g., Council of Europe and UNESCO) do absolutely nothing of value in Internet governance politics in ways that really matter. They just sit back and let the US take the initiative and do not raise a peep of protest. CoE would rather sell you one of their publications than actually advocate those positions in a policy forum such as ICANN. All that is new information. At the time, then, it didn't seem like such a bad idea. Five years of experience later, it just doesn't seem like using intergovernmental institutions as one's starting point can lead to anything much good. ________________________________________ From: Drake William [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:48 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks Hi Milton On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > As one of the people who originated the call for a Framework Convention during the WSIS, I feel we have to draw back from that at the present time. ACTA, the increasingly reactionary US govt role in CIR governance, cyberwar and "cyber-security," the Tunis Agenda's fallacious attempt to reserve "public policy" for nation-states, and the current anti-MS moves of the UN/CSTD all make it clear that states are not reliable or productive partners in any effort to build democratic global governance. To call for a negotiated convention, treaty or framework _in the context of the UN_ - an entity that still has debates about whether the people should even be allowed to participate in its deliberations, is crazy if one expects the outcome of such a negotiation to preserve or enhance the freedom of the internet and the rights of the people using it. Those negotiations will be all about the interests of states. As one of the people who said this during WSIS (and took some heat for it), I'm not entirely clear on your shift. It was already the case then that governments and firms wanted strong agreements on IPR and security and were asserting singular roles in public policy, and that the breadth and depth of real commitment to multistakeholderism had limits. And there were all the structural problems, like sharp disagreements among blocs of countries that made a winning coalition for meaningful text impossible, the lack of a viable forum and the likely inter-organizational reactions to any cross-cutting instrument, the difficulty of translating very high level principles down into the workings of myriad and constitutionally different governance mechanisms, and so on. The FC's problems were and are foundational and intrinsic, rather than being a function of the historical moment. Which goes also to the question of what is sensible to advocate now with respect to EC... 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 ceo at bnnrc.net Mon Dec 13 21:45:39 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:45:39 +0600 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> <4D03D5B2.6010409@eff.org> Message-ID: Dear Katitza Rodriguez, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) We are available for Bangle proofreading and Bangle translations from Bangladesh. With best regards, Bazlu _________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katitza Rodriguez" To: ; "Fouad Bajwa" Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! > Thank you everyone. We will contact all of you in private. I am still > seeking volunteers for Hindu, Bengali, Italian, French, Arabic, and > Chinese. > Please send me a private note to katitza @ eff .org > > All the best, Katitza > > > On 12/11/10 11:29 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> I am available for Urdu and English proofreading and Urdu >> translations.... >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> sent using my iPad >> >> On 11 Dec 2010, at 07:22, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> Holas, >>> >>> Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us in a >>> campaign to fight online censorship: >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would love >>> your help to be able to reach out to the international communities to >>> help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting online censorship. >>> >>> If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a great >>> deal. This project only involve one page of translation, though if you >>> are interested we could also let you know about any future campaigns. >>> >>> We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and Spanish. We >>> would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish speakers to look at our >>> translations. We would also like other languages. We are especially >>> looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, and Arabic, but would appreciate many >>> other languages as well! Please let us know if you can help. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Tue Dec 14 03:12:24 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:12:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision Message-ID: <06e101cb9b66$a57e2bf0$f07a83d0$@net> This is in the context of recent Wikileaks, which left various ruling coalition partners red faced. Wikileaks severely hurt several so called religious-cum-clerics-cum-political leaders in the government for their corruption. Not that people didn’t know about them earlier but still it hurt because media continues to take up different aspects of it on daily basis. Best wishes Shahzad ---------- BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision MUSHTAQ GHUMMAN http://www.brecorder.com/news/telecommunication/pakistan/1133922:blackberry- cellphone-banned-for-official-use-government-decision.html ISLAMABAD  (December 14, 2010) : The government has decided to ban official use of BlackBerry cellphones to plug leakage of sensitive information to hostile parties, well-informed sources in Interior Ministry told Business Recorder. Authentic reports suggest that the Indian government is attempting to acquire the capability of intercepting transmissions in the hope of extracting sensitive information. Pakistan Armed Forces ie Army, Air Force and Pakistan Navy have already banned the use of Blackberry for official business. "Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Ministry of Information Technology and Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs are backing this proposal," sources added. This ban must be viewed in the context of WikiLeaks revelations that shook the world including Pakistan through the release of thousands of secret cables sent by US embassies to the State Department. The sources said it has been observed that some federal and provincial departments' functionaries are using BlackBerry cell phones for communication of official voice/data. There are following two fundamental problems in the use of BlackBerry: (i) Its encryption/decryption keys are controlled by a foreign-based company. Therefore, a subscriber using BlackBerry is outside our communication security regime and; (ii) the moment a BlackBerry is switched on, it is automatically connected to the Internet. Voice/data being transmitted by the set is thus available to interested/hostile parties based abroad and can, therefore, be used/exploited for ulterior motives. In fact, a BlackBerry is a security threat even if it is in an idle state. Sources said Chinese and French governments have imposed ban on Research in Motion (RiP). There are also reports that Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) have undertaken initiatives to place restraints on BlackBerry services. The US and European countries have vital interests and troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that there can be attempts to monitor communication traffic originating from Afghanistan and surrounding countries. The possibility of some foreign states supporting their security partners to facilitate access to the communications traffic originating on BlackBerry network in the region cannot be ruled out. Sources said the Cabinet Division has recommended that any communication which has control outside Pakistan should not be used in view of high risk of cyber espionage. Since BlackBerry is a brand of a foreign company whose services are controlled from outside Pakistan its use by government functionaries at all levels for official business poses a credible threat to national security and needs to be banned immediately, sources quoted the Cabinet Division as recommending to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Dec 14 06:47:25 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:47:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! In-Reply-To: References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> <4D03D5B2.6010409@eff.org> Message-ID: <20101214114809.6A0D04B3EA@npogroups.org> A minor point of note. Bengali is more preferred as Bangla. And, I support Mr. Bazlu's proposition. To me, BNNRC is in a better position to perform the task. Best regards, Hakikur At 02:45 AM 12/14/2010, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: >Dear Katitza Rodriguez, >Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >We are available for Bangle proofreading and Bangle translations >from Bangladesh. > >With best regards, > > >Bazlu >_________________________ >AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR >Chief Executive Officer >Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] >& >Head, Community Radio Academy > >House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 >Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh > >Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 >Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 >E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Katitza Rodriguez" >To: ; "Fouad Bajwa" >Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:49 AM >Subject: Re: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! > > >>Thank you everyone. We will contact all of you in private. I am >>still seeking volunteers for Hindu, Bengali, Italian, French, >>Arabic, and Chinese. >>Please send me a private note to katitza @ eff .org >> >>All the best, Katitza >> >> >>On 12/11/10 11:29 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>I am available for Urdu and English proofreading and Urdu translations.... >>> >>>Fouad Bajwa >>>sent using my iPad >>> >>>On 11 Dec 2010, at 07:22, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>>Holas, >>>> >>>>Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help >>>>us in a campaign to fight online censorship: >>>>https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would >>>>love your help to be able to reach out to the international >>>>communities to help grow a grassroots coalition of people >>>>fighting online censorship. >>>> >>>>If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a >>>>great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, >>>>though if you are interested we could also let you know about any >>>>future campaigns. >>>> >>>>We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and >>>>Spanish. We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish >>>>speakers to look at our translations. We would also like other >>>>languages. We are especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, >>>>and Arabic, but would appreciate many other languages as >>>>well! Please let us know if you can help. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>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 >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Dec 14 08:10:32 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:10:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Pakistan: BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision In-Reply-To: <06e101cb9b66$a57e2bf0$f07a83d0$@net> References: <06e101cb9b66$a57e2bf0$f07a83d0$@net> Message-ID: <849436.41892.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> With reference to "Banning of BlackBerry for Official Use by Pak Govt.", I do not agree with the comments (merged within the news) of Business Recorder  to relate its context with the Wikileaks. Wikileaks issue is very latest, while the efforts are since first day when Blackberry Devices were offered to Govt. Officials free of cost. It’s a good decision for Information Security in National Interest by the Cabinet Division. ________________________________ This is in the context of recent Wikileaks, which left various ruling coalition partners red faced. Wikileaks severely hurt several so called religious-cum-clerics-cum-political leaders in the government for their corruption. Not that people didn’t know about them earlier but still it hurt because media continues to take up different aspects of it on daily basis.  Best wishes Shahzad ---------- BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision MUSHTAQ GHUMMAN http://www.brecorder.com/news/telecommunication/pakistan/1133922:blackberry- cellphone-banned-for-official-use-government-decision.html  ISLAMABAD  (December 14, 2010) : The government has decided to ban official use of ..... From: Shahzad Ahmad To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue, 14 December, 2010 13:12:24 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Dec 14 10:00:27 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:00:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Our Committees have facilitators now Message-ID: Dear list, As Jeremy indicated, we are happy to deliver a good news on our committees. In response to the idea of forming three sub-groups or committees, Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach, the following members of IGC agreed to take some leadership or facilitation role upon the co-coordinators request. They are: Rafik Dammak - Strategy Raquel Gatto - Work Plan Marilia Maciel - Outreach Thank you for taking these crucial roles, as voluntary work. For all, it is not THEIR job to advance, but rather it's our collective work that will make the implementation. The three facilitators will not, hopefully work in their own silos, but will collaborate, as appropriate, together with myself and Jeremy, to have more efficient division of labor as there will be more works and tasks for us to come. best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Dec 14 12:04:32 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:04:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! In-Reply-To: References: <4D02E07B.2080000@eff.org> <4D03D5B2.6010409@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D07A3A0.9090107@eff.org> Hi There, We already have Bengali. Lets coordinate so we do not duplicate efforts or someone share their knowledge with me ? may it is be better to have it in both languages? Pls. advise! Katitza On 12/14/10 3:47 AM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > A minor point of note. Bengali is more preferred as Bangla. And, I > support Mr. Bazlu's proposition. To me, BNNRC is in a better position > to perform the task. > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > At 02:45 AM 12/14/2010, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: >> Dear Katitza Rodriguez, >> Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication >> (BNNRC) >> We are available for Bangle proofreading and Bangle translations from >> Bangladesh. >> >> With best regards, >> >> >> Bazlu >> _________________________ >> AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR >> Chief Executive Officer >> Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >> [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social >> Council] >> & >> Head, Community Radio Academy >> >> House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 >> Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh >> >> Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 >> Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 >> E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katitza Rodriguez" >> To: ; "Fouad Bajwa" >> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:49 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] OT: ACTION: Translator or Proofreader NEEDED! >> >> >>> Thank you everyone. We will contact all of you in private. I am >>> still seeking volunteers for Hindu, Bengali, Italian, French, >>> Arabic, and Chinese. >>> Please send me a private note to katitza @ eff .org >>> >>> All the best, Katitza >>> >>> >>> On 12/11/10 11:29 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> I am available for Urdu and English proofreading and Urdu >>>> translations.... >>>> >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> sent using my iPad >>>> >>>> On 11 Dec 2010, at 07:22, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>> >>>>> Holas, >>>>> >>>>> Here at EFF, we are seeking a few volunteer translators to help us >>>>> in a campaign to fight online censorship: >>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship We would >>>>> love your help to be able to reach out to the international >>>>> communities to help grow a grassroots coalition of people fighting >>>>> online censorship. >>>>> >>>>> If you can help as a translator or proofreader, it would help a >>>>> great deal. This project only involve one page of translation, >>>>> though if you are interested we could also let you know about any >>>>> future campaigns. >>>>> >>>>> We have already got a translator for German, Portuguese and >>>>> Spanish. We would like native Portuguese, German and Spanish >>>>> speakers to look at our translations. We would also like other >>>>> languages. We are especially looking for Chinese, French, Urdu, >>>>> and Arabic, but would appreciate many other languages as well! >>>>> Please let us know if you can help. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 14 15:47:45 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:47:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision In-Reply-To: <849436.41892.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <06e101cb9b66$a57e2bf0$f07a83d0$@net>,<849436.41892.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC1200903@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> _Why_ is it a good decision? ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah [ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 8:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Shahzad Ahmad Cc: Imran UISoc Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan: BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision With reference to "Banning of BlackBerry for Official Use by Pak Govt.", I do not agree with the comments (merged within the news) of Business Recorder to relate its context with the Wikileaks. Wikileaks issue is very latest, while the efforts are since first day when Blackberry Devices were offered to Govt. Officials free of cost. It’s a good decision for Information Security in National Interest by the Cabinet Division. ________________________________ From: Shahzad Ahmad To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue, 14 December, 2010 13:12:24 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision This is in the context of recent Wikileaks, which left various ruling coalition partners red faced. Wikileaks severely hurt several so called religious-cum-clerics-cum-political leaders in the government for their corruption. Not that people didn’t know about them earlier but still it hurt because media continues to take up different aspects of it on daily basis. Best wishes Shahzad ---------- BlackBerry cellphone banned for official use: government decision MUSHTAQ GHUMMAN http://www.brecorder.com/news/telecommunication/pakistan/1133922:blackberry- cellphone-banned-for-official-use-government-decision.html ISLAMABAD (December 14, 2010) : The government has decided to ban official use of ..... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Dec 14 16:22:09 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:22:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Live from New York - EC consultation webcasting now Message-ID: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/index.html izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Dec 14 18:14:49 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:14:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today Message-ID: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> hi, is there a url for this? thanks (you would think i'd know, but i don't) 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 19:59:10 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:59:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Deadline Dec 17: EuroDIG agenda survey Message-ID: Just a quick remind of the deadline to take part on the EuroDIG agenda survey, available in: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/eurodig It will take you no more than 10 min to reply this survey. The results will be published in EuroDIG website and will be taken into account in the next planning meeting. The deadline is Friday, December 17th. Thank you! On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > As you may know, an EuroDIG planning meeting took place in Geneva on 23 > November. During this meeting the agenda of the 4th EuroDIG in Belgrade > (30/31 May 2011) started to be discussed. > > > EuroDIG team invite interested people to indicate their preferences in the > *agenda survey *available here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/eurodig > > > It will take you no more than 10 min to reply this survey. The results will > be published in EuroDIG website and will be taken into account in the next > planning meeting. The deadline to answer the survey is *December 17*. > > > This survey is part of a broader initiative to promote e-participation in > EuroDIG, which encompasses online participation in planning meetings, in the > process of agenda setting and remote participation in EuroDIG. > > > Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. You can send them to > office at eurodig.org > > > Best regards > > > Marilia > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Dec 14 20:00:24 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 02:00:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG: Statement References: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0758D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0758F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0759E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0759F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi List here is my statement for the Friday Consultations. I am unable to come to Geneva. I am with the Futuere Internet Assembly (FIA) of the EU in Gent, Belgium, where I am involved in a workhop on the Internet of Things. However I want to make my voice heard in the 17th December UNCSTD consultations. I hope the organizers will find a way to put this in record. BTW, I did send an e-Mail to the 17 members of the UNCSTD who participated in the December 6 meeting and asked them the following three questions: "Dear member of the UNCSTD, I would be thankful if you could answer the three following questions with regard to the decision by the UNCSTD to launch an intergovernmental WG on the IGF improvement: 1. Did you previously participate in the Annual IGF or its open Consultations in Geneva and if yes, in how many events you participated? 2. Did the definition of Internet Governance, as ratified by the heads of States in the Tunis Agenda during the 2nd UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in November 2005 guide your decision to establish an intergovernmental working group on the IGF improvement? 3. Where do you see the extra value an intergovernmental working group brings to the process compared to a multistakeholder working group? I thank you for your effort Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter University of Aarhus International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR)" Lets wait and see if somebody will reply Best wishes wolfgang Here is the list of the 17 members who particpated in the December 6 meeting (I excluded the chair/Swirzerland) Argentina Ms. Mariela FOGANTE, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva China Mr. Wang XIAOYING, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva Cuba Ms. Janet ROMÁN ARREDONDO, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva Egypt Mr. Yasser HASSAN, Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva France Mr. Maxime GODART, Permanent Mission, Geneva Ghana Mr. Anthony K. NYAME-BAAFI, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva Greece Mr. George PAPADATOS, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva India Ms. K. NANDINI, Counsellor (Economic), Permanent Mission, Geneva Iran (Islamic Republic of) Mr. Alireza TOOTOONCHIAN, Second Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva Israel Ms. Rona LANGER ZIV, Permanent Mission, Geneva Jordan Ms. Ghadeer EL FAYEZ, Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva Lesotho Mr. Alphonce Lefeu RAMONE, Minister-Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva Malaysia Mr. Abdul Aziz AZRIL, Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva Portugal Mr. Ricardo PRACANA, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission, Geneva South Africa Ms. Tshihumbudzo RAVHANDALALA, First Secretary, Economic Affairs, Permanent Mission, Geneva Sudan Mr. Ali Mohamed Ahmed Osman MOHAMED, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva United States of America Mr. Craig REILLY, First Secretary, Economic and Science Affairs, Permanent Mission, Geneva ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: Statement 2010 December 17 IAMCR.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16963 bytes Desc: Statement 2010 December 17 IAMCR.docx URL: From aizu at anr.org Tue Dec 14 20:24:44 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:24:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] WG: Statement In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0759F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <139A12D5-8C08-4120-B11E-BA7CFD29C4B7@isoc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0758D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0758F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0759E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0759F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, being there, I can ask the organizer to make statement on behalf of you. If simply ask the organizer to be "heard" they may just accept the paper but not real voice ;-). Why don't you designate me to them? izumi 2010/12/15 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Hi List > > here is my statement for the Friday Consultations. I am unable to come to Geneva. I am with the Futuere Internet Assembly (FIA) of the EU in Gent, Belgium, where I am involved in a workhop on the Internet of Things. However I want to make my voice heard in the 17th December UNCSTD consultations. I hope the organizers will find a way to put this in record. > > BTW, I did send an e-Mail to the 17 members of the UNCSTD who participated in the December 6 meeting and asked them the following three questions: > > "Dear  member of the UNCSTD, > > I would be thankful if you could answer the three following questions with regard to the decision by the UNCSTD to launch an intergovernmental WG on the IGF improvement: > > 1. Did you previously participate in the Annual IGF or its open Consultations in Geneva and if yes, in how many events you participated? > > 2. Did the definition of Internet Governance, as ratified by the heads of States in the Tunis Agenda during the 2nd UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in November 2005 guide your decision to establish an intergovernmental working group on the IGF improvement? > > 3. Where do you see the extra value an intergovernmental working group brings to the process compared to a multistakeholder working group? > > I thank you for your effort > > Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter > University of Aarhus > International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR)" > > Lets wait and see if somebody will reply > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > Here is the list of the 17 members who particpated in the December 6 meeting (I excluded the chair/Swirzerland) > > > Argentina > > Ms. Mariela FOGANTE, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > China > > Mr. Wang XIAOYING, First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Cuba > > Ms. Janet ROMÁN ARREDONDO, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Egypt > > Mr. Yasser HASSAN, Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > France > > Mr. Maxime GODART, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Ghana > > Mr. Anthony K. NYAME-BAAFI, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Greece > > Mr. George PAPADATOS, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > India > > Ms. K. NANDINI, Counsellor (Economic), Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Iran (Islamic Republic of) > > Mr. Alireza TOOTOONCHIAN, Second Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Israel > > Ms. Rona LANGER ZIV, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Jordan > > Ms. Ghadeer EL FAYEZ, Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Lesotho > > Mr. Alphonce Lefeu RAMONE, Minister-Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Malaysia > > Mr. Abdul Aziz AZRIL, Advisor, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Portugal > > Mr. Ricardo PRACANA, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > South Africa > > Ms. Tshihumbudzo RAVHANDALALA, First Secretary, Economic Affairs, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > Sudan > > Mr. Ali Mohamed Ahmed Osman MOHAMED, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > United States of America > > Mr. Craig REILLY, First Secretary, Economic and Science Affairs, Permanent Mission, Geneva > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Tue Dec 14 20:26:25 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:26:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> Message-ID: Webcast is likely to be stored here: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html izumi 2010/12/15 Avri Doria : > hi, > > is there a url for this? > > thanks > (you would think i'd know, but i don't) > > 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 > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 21:13:01 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:13:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Message-ID: This is a pretty informative post about this pseudo-NN issue. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html "Backdoor Santa" may be the best personal brand name ever! -- 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 Dec 14 21:34:58 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:34:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Webcast is likely to be stored here: > > http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html skip the first 20 minutes, crazy woman with pirate patch goes completely off-topic.."Will no one think of the children" screed. Not a word about EC. -- 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 Wed Dec 15 03:09:10 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:09:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Our Committees have facilitators now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good option that will allow us to work efficiently and make relevant contributions. Baudouin 2010/12/14 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > > As Jeremy indicated, we are happy to deliver a good news on our committees. > > In response to the idea of forming three sub-groups or committees, > Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach, the following members of IGC agreed > to take some leadership or facilitation role upon the co-coordinators > request. > They are: > > Rafik Dammak - Strategy > Raquel Gatto - Work Plan > Marilia Maciel - Outreach > > Thank you for taking these crucial roles, as voluntary work. > > For all, it is not THEIR job to advance, but rather it's our collective > work > that will make the implementation. The three facilitators will not, > hopefully > work in their own silos, but will collaborate, as appropriate, together > with > myself and Jeremy, to have more efficient division of labor as there will > be more works and tasks for us to come. > > best, > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 05:02:27 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:02:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> Message-ID: <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:34 AM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Webcast is likely to be stored here: >> >> http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html > > > skip the first 20 minutes, crazy woman with pirate patch goes > completely off-topic.."Will no one think of the children" screed. > > Not a word about EC. The government representatives were all on topic. With a few exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state of the world, etc. It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and necessity of a multistakeholder process. Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC. Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere…. Best, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Dec 15 05:18:48 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:18:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dec 17 meeting - who will participate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi, On Dec 13, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > > Who are going to participate on Dec 17 CSTD open consultation meeting > on the IGF from IGC members? I'll attend on the 17th, wasn't planning on the 16th, at least not the measurement bit. I might show for the last part on WSIS, depending. Anriette said she might come…don't know about anyone else from CS…. > > I will arrive on Dec 15 late evening and will attend CSTD meeting on Dec 16, > and/or have some meeting with those gov and biz folks who joined the letter of > protest on the formation of IGF WG. At the Cartagena IGF session, some of them expressed interest in trying to coordinate a little, inter alia since a lack of coordination was obviously a factor in the "clear majority" decision of Dec. 6. Should definitely follow up. Bill > > Please let me know and coordinate our actions. > > best, > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.williamdrake.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 15 05:29:22 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:29:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> It turns out that everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity, plus an open discussion at the end of the day. The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him to call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two separate projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). And while the IGF was a popular talking shop, which everyone wanted to continue, it was an example of cooperation (albeit with developing countries rather lacking), whereas what he was looking for was new ideas for an embodiment of *enhanced* cooperation. He was somewhat impatient with speakers who said that "everything is fine at the moment". The result is likely to be a new [CSTD] Working Group, where he stressed the "work" aspect, to look into this. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Dec 15 06:45:42 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:45:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008F3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D0471EE.1080008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008E9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<57DD7A50-3A54-477E-903B-45FF8F48F66E@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008F3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <826FDC76-B6ED-4092-84AC-3137030A15C7@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Milton On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Bill > I don't recall you making any such arguments during WSIS. I do recall you making some very thoughtful arguments to that effect at an IGF workshop (was it Athens or Rio?) at which point I began to consider those practical obstacles more seriously and eventually changed my own position. I certainly don't recall everything I or anyone else said when over the three years, so I wouldn't expect you to either. But if I had time for an archeological expedition through the governance and plenary archives, I'm pretty sure I could find messages reflecting my skepticism (per usual, probably buried in a thread with a different subject line, like this one). I also think I expressed it verbally to John and yourself, inter alia at well lubricated CS dinners etc. And actually, I believe I'd have touched on it in some of my various workshop/side event rants about how the governance architecture is distributed and heterogeneous rather than under a unifying meta-regime & principles etc. That was a reaction to some academic arguments of the period and the actually existing proposals for one-stop solutions (e.g. the ITU's, the EU's "cooperation at the level of principles" debacle, etc.), and also a part of my blah blah about the need for a broad definition of IG, a holistic analytical approach and IGF mandate, etc. But whatever, ancient history. > > Remember that, during WSIS, we seemed to have the following positions in place: > a) USG seemed to be resisting governmental intervention in Internet and strongly supporting MSism; this position has since been drastically curtailed and to some extent revealed as a facade; moreover, US and ISOC have resisted making IGF into a forum for such discussions and forum-shop relentlessly. Well, they supported multistakeholderism in the Internet "private-sector led" institutions, and apparently became ok with some measure of it in the OECD. But governmental decision making bodies, ITU et al, not so much... > b) France and other EU members were talking about "enhanced cooperation" or "global public policy principles", some of which (e.g., a commitment to end-to-end) were quite good and seemed to be putting pressure on the US to negotiate, in a MS environment, toward global governance principles. This appearance bubble popped as EU decided to work directly with US in pursuing its power-sharing goals over DNS I thought that was a disaster, not a "Jefferson rebuffed" moment (helps to be in the room). The USG's head exploded; China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al jumped up to embrace it; and the UK presidency disowned it—all in about a half hour. > c) Brazil, the most progressive of the developing countries, was openly talking of a framework convention, influenced directly by IGP's work. But it really never fully allied itself with civil society efforts on that agenda, even though it had the chance. Yup > > It's also been interesting to see, in the "morality and public order" debates within ICANN, how even intergovernmental orgs allegedly devoted to free expression and human rights (e.g., Council of Europe and UNESCO) do absolutely nothing of value in Internet governance politics in ways that really matter. They just sit back and let the US take the initiative and do not raise a peep of protest. CoE would rather sell you one of their publications than actually advocate those positions in a policy forum such as ICANN. Well to be fair, how easy would it be for the secretariats of intergovernmental organizations to come into ICANN and take strong positions on divisive topics, especially when their member governments are flailing around on the same in the GAC? I share your frustration at the lack of support for NCSG/ALAC efforts, but wouldn't it be better to ask this of the nongovernmental "community" bodies? > > All that is new information. At the time, then, it didn't seem like such a bad idea. Five years of experience later, it just doesn't seem like using intergovernmental institutions as one's starting point can lead to anything much good. There's certainly cause for skepticism on this, and yet it's what IGC's recently advocated. On Dec 13, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Still, a '2020' vision or 2050 plan or framework or (choose your preferred word which translates well into multiple languages), for where we would like to be heading towards could serve as a rallying point for a much broader swath of global civil society than IGC was able to reach....in the pre-Leaks era. In my always humble opinion. Wow, talk about moving the goal posts, Lee. Ok, so let's return to the FC concept then…it's good to stay active in retirement :-) 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 jcurran at arin.net Wed Dec 15 07:25:53 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:25:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <638020DB-3DE9-4982-892E-BDA3215D7850@corp.arin.net> On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Drake William wrote: > The government representatives were all on topic. With a few exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state of the world, etc. It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and necessity of a multistakeholder process. Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC. > > Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere…. > > Best, > > Bill Bill - Did you feel that the NRO or ISOC comments were off-topic? /John (who spoke on behalf of the NRO)____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 15 07:33:13 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:33:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] Live from New York - EC consultation webcasting now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those like me that were offline yesterday, the webcast has been archived here: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/index.html > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Dec 15 08:07:42 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:07:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <638020DB-3DE9-4982-892E-BDA3215D7850@corp.arin.net> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> <638020DB-3DE9-4982-892E-BDA3215D7850@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8B74B070-1701-4EA4-B3FD-BB34F08EA1DE@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi John On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:25 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Drake William wrote: > >> The government representatives were all on topic. With a few exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state of the world, etc. It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and necessity of a multistakeholder process. Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC. >> >> Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere…. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill > > Bill - > > Did you feel that the NRO or ISOC comments were off-topic? > > /John > > (who spoke on behalf of the NRO) Uh, kinda awkward on a list…but I guess I asked for it. No, I thought you were more on point than most. Your first statement about governments and numbers groups being increasingly active in each others' spaces illustrated the "EC is already happening on a distributed basis" premise. On the other hand, they're not necessarily denying that. They're saying a) it's not enough, so governments also need an isolated space free from pesky stakeholders in which they can more comfortably talk about unidentified problems that can only be addressed properly by unidentified principles of their sole making; b) the TA mandates this, so it must be done; c) it's the natural order of things, since the UN has an IGO for other every other issue-area like energy, transport, etc, so why not Internet; and so on…Your second intervention asking how a government-only process fits with the TA spoke to b). But it would have been more effective if you'd directed it to one of the government proponents; asking the chair to explain was an invitation for it to be waved off on grounds of neutrality. I think you had a third comment too but I didn't take notes, maybe was multitasking. Didn't hear ISOC's. Anyway, I'd have liked to have heard some probing questioning of premise a), although it probably wouldn't have mattered, the alignments weren't going to change based on oratory and reasoning. Just would have been nice to have collectively put up a better front so the situation was more plain and open to challenge later on... 2 cents, 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 raquelgatto at uol.com.br Wed Dec 15 08:30:02 2010 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:30:02 -0200 Subject: [governance] Our Committees have facilitators now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d08c2da418a6_48227a9566c318@weasel4.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Dec 15 08:31:36 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:31:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <826FDC76-B6ED-4092-84AC-3137030A15C7@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <80410176-40CC-4435-A7CF-0CAF58884BE2@ciroap.org> <7D828A96-835E-43E9-8717-314F403A4471@ciroap.org> <4D046193.6080307@itforchange.net> ,<4D0471EE.1080008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008E9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<57DD7A50-3A54-477E-903B-45FF8F48F66E@graduateinstitute.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008F3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<826FDC76-B6ED-4092-84AC-3137030A15C7@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F69@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Bill, Go into the archives and you'll find I always said we were at the beginning of what should be viewed as a decades-long process. How many decades....well who knows. But my point back then and still today is that it is a fallacy to assume that a 'framework of principles' whether labelled a convention or otherwise, would necessarily cede to nations the last word, as a conventional UN convention would. Whatever else one may think of Mr. Assange, he's made my point more obvious to - nations. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Drake William [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:45 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks Hi Milton On Dec 14, 2010, at 12:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Bill > I don't recall you making any such arguments during WSIS. I do recall you making some very thoughtful arguments to that effect at an IGF workshop (was it Athens or Rio?) at which point I began to consider those practical obstacles more seriously and eventually changed my own position. I certainly don't recall everything I or anyone else said when over the three years, so I wouldn't expect you to either. But if I had time for an archeological expedition through the governance and plenary archives, I'm pretty sure I could find messages reflecting my skepticism (per usual, probably buried in a thread with a different subject line, like this one). I also think I expressed it verbally to John and yourself, inter alia at well lubricated CS dinners etc. And actually, I believe I'd have touched on it in some of my various workshop/side event rants about how the governance architecture is distributed and heterogeneous rather than under a unifying meta-regime & principles etc. That was a reaction to some academic arguments of the period and the actually existing proposals for one-stop solutions (e.g. the ITU's, the EU's "cooperation at the level of principles" debacle, etc.), and also a part of my blah blah about the need for a broad definition of IG, a holistic analytical approach and IGF mandate, etc. But whatever, ancient history. > > Remember that, during WSIS, we seemed to have the following positions in place: > a) USG seemed to be resisting governmental intervention in Internet and strongly supporting MSism; this position has since been drastically curtailed and to some extent revealed as a facade; moreover, US and ISOC have resisted making IGF into a forum for such discussions and forum-shop relentlessly. Well, they supported multistakeholderism in the Internet "private-sector led" institutions, and apparently became ok with some measure of it in the OECD. But governmental decision making bodies, ITU et al, not so much... > b) France and other EU members were talking about "enhanced cooperation" or "global public policy principles", some of which (e.g., a commitment to end-to-end) were quite good and seemed to be putting pressure on the US to negotiate, in a MS environment, toward global governance principles. This appearance bubble popped as EU decided to work directly with US in pursuing its power-sharing goals over DNS I thought that was a disaster, not a "Jefferson rebuffed" moment (helps to be in the room). The USG's head exploded; China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al jumped up to embrace it; and the UK presidency disowned it—all in about a half hour. > c) Brazil, the most progressive of the developing countries, was openly talking of a framework convention, influenced directly by IGP's work. But it really never fully allied itself with civil society efforts on that agenda, even though it had the chance. Yup > > It's also been interesting to see, in the "morality and public order" debates within ICANN, how even intergovernmental orgs allegedly devoted to free expression and human rights (e.g., Council of Europe and UNESCO) do absolutely nothing of value in Internet governance politics in ways that really matter. They just sit back and let the US take the initiative and do not raise a peep of protest. CoE would rather sell you one of their publications than actually advocate those positions in a policy forum such as ICANN. Well to be fair, how easy would it be for the secretariats of intergovernmental organizations to come into ICANN and take strong positions on divisive topics, especially when their member governments are flailing around on the same in the GAC? I share your frustration at the lack of support for NCSG/ALAC efforts, but wouldn't it be better to ask this of the nongovernmental "community" bodies? > > All that is new information. At the time, then, it didn't seem like such a bad idea. Five years of experience later, it just doesn't seem like using intergovernmental institutions as one's starting point can lead to anything much good. There's certainly cause for skepticism on this, and yet it's what IGC's recently advocated. On Dec 13, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Still, a '2020' vision or 2050 plan or framework or (choose your preferred word which translates well into multiple languages), for where we would like to be heading towards could serve as a rallying point for a much broader swath of global civil society than IGC was able to reach....in the pre-Leaks era. In my always humble opinion. Wow, talk about moving the goal posts, Lee. Ok, so let's return to the FC concept then…it's good to stay active in retirement :-) 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Wed Dec 15 09:01:07 2010 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:01:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] Dec 17 meeting - who will participate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 15 09:08:00 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:38:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <8B74B070-1701-4EA4-B3FD-BB34F08EA1DE@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> <638020DB-3DE9-4982-892E-BDA3215D7850@corp.arin.net> <8B74B070-1701-4EA4-B3FD-BB34F08EA1DE@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D08CBC0.2070804@itforchange.net> Drake William wrote: >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Drake William wrote: >> >> >>> Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere…. >>> It is enclosed. parminder >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >> Bill - >> >> Did you feel that the NRO or ISOC comments were off-topic? >> >> /John >> >> (who spoke on behalf of the NRO) >> > > Uh, kinda awkward on a list…but I guess I asked for it. No, I thought you were more on point than most. Your first statement about governments and numbers groups being increasingly active in each others' spaces illustrated the "EC is already happening on a distributed basis" premise. On the other hand, they're not necessarily denying that. They're saying a) it's not enough, so governments also need an isolated space free from pesky stakeholders in which they can more comfortably talk about unidentified problems that can only be addressed properly by unidentified principles of their sole making; b) the TA mandates this, so it must be done; c) it's the natural order of things, since the UN has an IGO for other every other issue-area like energy, transport, etc, so why not Internet; and so on…Your second intervention asking how a government-only process fits with the TA spoke to b). But it would have been more effective if you'd directed it to one of the government proponents; asking the chair to explain was an invitation for it to be waved off on grounds of neutrality. I think you had a third comment too but I didn't take notes, maybe was multitasking. Didn't hear ISOC's. Anyway, I'd have liked to have heard some probing questioning of premise a), although it probably wouldn't have mattered, the alignments weren't going to change based on oratory and reasoning. Just would have been nice to have collectively put up a better front so the situation was more plain and open to challenge later on... > > 2 cents, > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IBSA Joint Statement - Enhanced Cooperation - December 2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 207004 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 09:11:10 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:11:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <4D08CBC0.2070804@itforchange.net> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> <638020DB-3DE9-4982-892E-BDA3215D7850@corp.arin.net> <8B74B070-1701-4EA4-B3FD-BB34F08EA1DE@graduateinstitute.ch> <4D08CBC0.2070804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: And it is online here: http://observatoriodainternet.br/statement-do-ibas-sobre-cooperacao-reforcada-no-processo-de-governanca-da-internet On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, parminder wrote: > > > Drake William wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Drake William wrote: > > > > Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere…. > > > It is enclosed. parminder > > Best, > > Bill > > > Bill - > > Did you feel that the NRO or ISOC comments were off-topic? > > /John > > (who spoke on behalf of the NRO) > > > Uh, kinda awkward on a list…but I guess I asked for it. No, I thought you were more on point than most. Your first statement about governments and numbers groups being increasingly active in each others' spaces illustrated the "EC is already happening on a distributed basis" premise. On the other hand, they're not necessarily denying that. They're saying a) it's not enough, so governments also need an isolated space free from pesky stakeholders in which they can more comfortably talk about unidentified problems that can only be addressed properly by unidentified principles of their sole making; b) the TA mandates this, so it must be done; c) it's the natural order of things, since the UN has an IGO for other every other issue-area like energy, transport, etc, so why not Internet; and so on…Your second intervention asking how a government-only process fits with the TA spoke to b). But it would have been more effective if you'd directed it to one of the government propone > nts; asking the chair to explain was an invitation for it to be waved off on grounds of neutrality. I think you had a third comment too but I didn't take notes, maybe was multitasking. Didn't hear ISOC's. Anyway, I'd have liked to have heard some probing questioning of premise a), although it probably wouldn't have mattered, the alignments weren't going to change based on oratory and reasoning. Just would have been nice to have collectively put up a better front so the situation was more plain and open to challenge later on... > > 2 cents, > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bkuerbis at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 10:59:21 2010 From: bkuerbis at gmail.com (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:59:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nice one. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM, McTim wrote: > This is a pretty informative post about this pseudo-NN issue. > > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html > > "Backdoor Santa" may be the best personal brand name ever! > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 15 11:02:55 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:02:55 -0600 Subject: [governance] Our Committees have facilitators now In-Reply-To: <4d08c2da418a6_48227a9566c318@weasel4.tmail> References: <4d08c2da418a6_48227a9566c318@weasel4.tmail> Message-ID: Hi Raquel, I have signed up for the Outreach working group when Jeremy first announced the specific mailing lists for the working groups. Regards, Charity On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Raquel Gatto wrote: > Dear all, > It will be a pleasure to help as a facilitator for the workplan committee > and I hope we can take good results from the new structure. > I would like to remind that interested members should join one of the lists > (below) that Jeremy created a while ago, so we can start discussions as soon > as possible: > > > http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy > > http://igf-online.net/wws/info/workplan > > http://igf-online.net/wws/info/outreach > > Thanks again for the IGC co-coordinators to organize this all! > []s, Raquel > > ------------------------------ > Em 15/12/2010 06:09, *Baudouin SCHOMBE < b.schombe at gmail.com >* escreveu: > > Very good option that will allow us to work efficiently and make relevant > contributions. > > > Baudouin > > > 2010/12/14 Izumi AIZU > > > >> Dear list, >> >> As Jeremy indicated, we are happy to deliver a good news on our >> committees. >> >> In response to the idea of forming three sub-groups or committees, >> Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach, the following members of IGC agreed >> to take some leadership or facilitation role upon the co-coordinators >> request. >> They are: >> >> Rafik Dammak - Strategy >> Raquel Gatto - Work Plan >> Marilia Maciel - Outreach >> >> Thank you for taking these crucial roles, as voluntary work. >> >> For all, it is not THEIR job to advance, but rather it's our collective >> work >> that will make the implementation. The three facilitators will not, >> hopefully >> work in their own silos, but will collaborate, as appropriate, together >> with >> myself and Jeremy, to have more efficient division of labor as there will >> be more works and tasks for us to come. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- Charity Gamboa-Embley IGCBP10 MENA Group Tutor Diplo Foundation CharityG at diplomacy.edu Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy Science Department Chair 4008 Avenue R Lubbock, Texas 79412 cembley at esc17.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 11:00:54 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:00:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F70@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If you read the next couple posts in the string, looks more like a cleverly done part of the lobbying campaign pre-FCC's December 21 oracular statement of rules for an open Internet/net neutrality, than a true Backdoor Santa. But of course if you wish to believe in Santa Claus... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis [bkuerbis at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:59 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Nice one. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM, McTim > wrote: This is a pretty informative post about this pseudo-NN issue. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html "Backdoor Santa" may be the best personal brand name ever! -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 15 11:44:59 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:44:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Live from New York - EC consultation webcasting now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9saE$XbLCPCNFAbb@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 10:33:13 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel writes >For those like me that were offline yesterday, the webcast has been >archived here: >http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html Unfortunately, that's only the afternoon session. The morning session (including the rather long CONGO speech, and ICANN who went fifth) is missing. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 11:50:42 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:50:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] Live from New York - EC consultation webcasting now In-Reply-To: <9saE$XbLCPCNFAbb@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <9saE$XbLCPCNFAbb@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: If anyone has the statement from CONGO, could you please share it here? On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message >, > at 10:33:13 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel > writes > > For those like me that were offline yesterday, the webcast has been >> archived here: >> http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html >> > > Unfortunately, that's only the afternoon session. The morning session > (including the rather long CONGO speech, and ICANN who went fifth) is > missing. > -- > 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 15 12:13:11 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:13:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <8tBUPpencPCNFAbq@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7 at graduateinstitute.ch>, at 11:02:27 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Drake William writes >The government representatives were all on topic. With a few >exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off >topic, long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views >on the state of the world, etc. The chair was looking for proposals on what to do - to get Enhanced CoOperation off the ground. He wasn't very impressed by people who said "you've missed the point, IGF is working fine" or "everything's OK, nothing new needed". Despite the popular view that "doing nothing" might indeed be the best option, the chair pointed out that he had a resolution in front of him saying that "something must be done". Which, in politics, often becomes "this is something - we must do it". >It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and >necessity of a multistakeholder process. And the rather shaky start to his consultation in Sharm, as well as the "poster incident", probably didn't endear the less formal IGF process to those more used to New York protocols. >Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores >that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC. I did get the impression that many speakers were "our man in New York", whereas in Geneva we seem to see faces more familiar with the long term process. Again, with a few notable exceptions (in both directions, when the CSTD is involved). -- 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 Dec 15 12:57:21 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:57:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 10:29:22 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him to >call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two >separate projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new >resolution"). Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: 21. Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of WSIS, namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of the IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be complementary to one another, ... 24. Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced cooperation... -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Dec 15 13:59:04 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:59:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <8tBUPpencPCNFAbq@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> <8tBUPpencPCNFAbq@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <177875D9-B144-4CC9-A0EF-A52D0D73771E@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi I agree, when there's an agenda and purported mandate like this, arguing on other grounds is unlikely to get very far. BTW I should clarify that my comment below pertained only to the afternoon session, I didn't see the morning session with ISOC ICANN CONGO etc as it's not online. Bill On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7 at graduateinstitute.ch>, at 11:02:27 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Drake William writes >> The government representatives were all on topic. With a few exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state of the world, etc. > > The chair was looking for proposals on what to do - to get Enhanced CoOperation off the ground. > > He wasn't very impressed by people who said "you've missed the point, IGF is working fine" or "everything's OK, nothing new needed". > > Despite the popular view that "doing nothing" might indeed be the best option, the chair pointed out that he had a resolution in front of him saying that "something must be done". Which, in politics, often becomes "this is something - we must do it". > >> It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and necessity of a multistakeholder process. > > And the rather shaky start to his consultation in Sharm, as well as the "poster incident", probably didn't endear the less formal IGF process to those more used to New York protocols. > >> Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC. > > I did get the impression that many speakers were "our man in New York", whereas in Geneva we seem to see faces more familiar with the long term process. Again, with a few notable exceptions (in both directions, when the CSTD is involved). > -- > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.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 iza at anr.org Wed Dec 15 14:03:47 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:03:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Dec 17 meeting - who will participate? In-Reply-To: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> References: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> Message-ID: Raquel, To be honest, organizing remote communication at that place is quite difficult to be frank. First of all, I have to concentrate on the substantive part of discussion. If you miss some comment from the Chair, for example, it becomes difficult to follow the procedure or the meeting itself. And I have to make effective interventions depending on the context with other speakers. These require quite a degree of concentration. Also, there is no guarantee if we have wifi connection. I can find out when I join the CSTD meeting tomorrow. But even there is wifi, having only one PC myself, making notes on it, and not having headphone this time, logistically quite difficult. Having said this, let me try "something". At least making short reports using twitter or to the governance list is not impossible. I hope we can find some team members to follow the meeting there. best, izumi 2010/12/15 Raquel Gatto : > Hi Izumi, Bill and all, > I am not familiar with the CSTD procedures and facilities of the meeting > room, however considering that not all can organize a travel in such a short > term notice, would it be possible to provide some engagement remotely? > Probably there will not be remote tools for this meeting, but we could > organize with Skype or other options. It might demonstrate that we can > coordinate, organize ourselves and be united without being phisically > present... > []s Raquel > > ________________________________ > Em 15/12/2010 08:18, Drake William < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > escreveu: > Izumi, > > On Dec 13, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Who are going to participate on Dec 17 CSTD open consultation meeting >> on the IGF from IGC members? > > I'll attend on the 17th, wasn't planning on the 16th, at least not the > measurement bit. I might show for the last part on WSIS, depending. > > Anriette said she might come…don't know about anyone else from CS…. > >> >> I will arrive on Dec 15 late evening and will attend CSTD meeting on Dec >> 16, >> and/or have some meeting with those gov and biz folks who joined the >> letter of >> protest on the formation of IGF WG. > > At the Cartagena IGF session, some of them expressed interest in trying to > coordinate a little, inter alia since a lack of coordination was obviously a > factor in the "clear majori ty" decision of Dec. 6. Should definitely follow > up. > > Bill >> >> Please let me know and coordinate our actions. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.w illiamdrake.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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 14:38:43 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:38:43 +0500 Subject: [governance] Dec 17 meeting - who will participate? In-Reply-To: References: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> Message-ID: Hi Izumi, You might not have power either as if the consultation is in the larger hall where the IGF open consultations are usually held, it might be worth noting that we have always had trouble of not having access to power there. Best Fouad On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Raquel, > > To be honest, organizing remote communication at that place is quite > difficult to be frank. First of all, I have to concentrate on the substantive > part of discussion. If you miss some comment from the Chair, for example, > it becomes difficult to follow the procedure or the meeting itself. And I have > to make effective interventions depending on the context with other speakers. > These require quite a degree of concentration. > Also, there is no guarantee if we have wifi connection. I can find out when > I join the CSTD meeting tomorrow. But even there is wifi, having only one > PC myself, making notes on it, and not having headphone this time, > logistically quite difficult. > > Having said this, let me try "something".  At least making short reports > using twitter or to the governance list is not impossible. I hope we can > find some team members to follow the meeting there. > > best, > > izumi > > > > 2010/12/15 Raquel Gatto : >> Hi Izumi, Bill and all, >> I am not familiar with the CSTD procedures and facilities of the meeting >> room, however considering that not all can organize a travel in such a short >> term notice, would it be possible to provide some engagement remotely? >> Probably there will not be remote tools for this meeting, but we could >> organize with Skype or other options. It might demonstrate that we can >> coordinate, organize ourselves and be united without being phisically >> present... >> []s Raquel >> >> ________________________________ >> Em 15/12/2010 08:18, Drake William < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > >> escreveu: >> Izumi, >> >> On Dec 13, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Who are going to participate on Dec 17 CSTD open consultation meeting >>> on the IGF from IGC members? >> >> I'll attend on the 17th, wasn't planning on the 16th, at least not the >> measurement bit. I might show for the last part on WSIS, depending. >> >> Anriette said she might come…don't know about anyone else from CS…. >> >>> >>> I will arrive on Dec 15 late evening and will attend CSTD meeting on Dec >>> 16, >>> and/or have some meeting with those gov and biz folks who joined the >>> letter of >>> protest on the formation of IGF WG. >> >> At the Cartagena IGF session, some of them expressed interest in trying to >> coordinate a little, inter alia since a lack of coordination was obviously a >> factor in the "clear majori ty" decision of Dec. 6. Should definitely follow >> up. >> >> Bill >>> >>> Please let me know and coordinate our actions. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> izumi >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.w illiamdrake.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 >> > > > > -- >                         >> Izumi Aizu << > >           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >                                   Japan >                                  * * * * * >            << Writing the Future of the History >> >                                 www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 Dec 15 14:43:12 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:43:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what his conclusion of that meeting was. The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more substantial I guess. On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 10:29:22 on Wed, > 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes > >> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him to >> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two separate >> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). > > Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: > > 21.     Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of WSIS, > namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of the > IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct > processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be complementary > to one another, > > ... > > 24.     Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive > consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to > proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced > cooperation... > > -- > 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 > -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 15 15:09:23 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:09:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Dec 17 meeting - who will participate? In-Reply-To: References: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> Message-ID: In message , at 04:03:47 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >Also, there is no guarantee if we have wifi connection. I have found that wifi is pretty reliable inside the UN building E at Geneva. This meeting is in Room XXVI, which is one of the more modern rectangular rooms. Same room as last June's IGF planning meeting/ consultation (the one at the outer end on the building). -- 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 Dec 15 15:38:36 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:38:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what >his conclusion of that meeting was. There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended to 31st December about a month ago. A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are expected to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by the Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session through ECOSOC". That's end of 2011. >The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more substantial >I guess. There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation, other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing a report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June usually). ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's still current: "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS and are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the follow up to WSIS" >On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 10:29:22 on Wed, >> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >> >>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him to >>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two separate >>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). >> >> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: >> >> 21.     Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of WSIS, >> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of the >> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct >> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be complementary >> to one another, >> >> ... >> >> 24.     Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive >> consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to >> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced >> cooperation... >> >> -- >> Roland Perry -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 17:17:21 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:17:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS with consultative status only? On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message >, at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa > writes >>But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what >>his conclusion of that meeting was. > > There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended to > 31st December about a month ago. > > A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are expected > to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for > pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by the > Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session > through ECOSOC".  That's end of 2011. > >>The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more substantial >>I guess. > > There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation, > other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th > Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this > year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing a > report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous > consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June > usually). > > ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's still > current: > > "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS and > are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the follow > up to WSIS" > > D=4839> > >>On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry >> wrote: >>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 10:29:22 on Wed, >>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >>> >>>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him to >>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two separate >>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). >>> >>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: >>> >>> 21.     Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of WSIS, >>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of the >>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct >>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be complementary >>> to one another, >>> >>> ... >>> >>> 24.     Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive >>> consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to >>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced >>> cooperation... >>> >>> -- >>> Roland Perry > > -- > 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 -- 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 avri at acm.org Wed Dec 15 17:20:53 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:20:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Sha's closing remarks References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Closing Remarks_USG Sha.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 89673 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 17:30:27 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:30:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] A very good Swedish documentary on Wikileaks Message-ID: <7DB8FF1CCD3A48379EAE6BA821B7861A@userPC> http://svtplay.se/v/2264028/wikirebels_the_documentary This usefully puts things into perspective. M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 17:57:10 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:57:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 03:17:21 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS with >consultative status only? I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to decide if they want to apply for consultative status, currently (in some cases for longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux IP européens [my former client] and ISOC. Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow a wider audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well as their main sessions. And I think there's been progress here - they are having their third genuinely open consultation in a row later this week, even if the "drafting the communique" part has become a government-only group. And the main sessions last May had several "non-member" panellists invited to speak. There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - getting a proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also getting your opinions listened to in the short term. I'm not convinced that the latter is a huge obstacle as long as you approach it sensitively, and doing that successfully a few times often makes the former much easier. >On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message >>, at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa >> writes >>>But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what >>>his conclusion of that meeting was. >> >> There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended to >> 31st December about a month ago. >> >> A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are expected >> to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for >> pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by the >> Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session >> through ECOSOC".  That's end of 2011. >> >>>The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more substantial >>>I guess. >> >> There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation, >> other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th >> Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this >> year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing a >> report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous >> consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June >> usually). >> >> ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's still >> current: >> >> "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS and >> are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the follow >> up to WSIS" >> >> > D=4839> >> >>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry >>> wrote: >>>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 10:29:22 on Wed, >>>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >>>> >>>>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him to >>>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two separate >>>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). >>>> >>>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: >>>> >>>> 21.     Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of WSIS, >>>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of the >>>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct >>>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be >>>>complementary >>>> to one another, >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> 24.     Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive >>>> consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to >>>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced >>>> cooperation... >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Roland Perry -- 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 Dec 15 18:20:35 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:20:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Sha's closing remarks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 17:20:53 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes >[ A MIME application / pdf part was included here. ] Thanks for posting that. It's the formal closing statement which he didn't read out, on the grounds that "everyone in the room has a copy". Which was unfortunate for the remote participants :( The last paragraph describes what "happens next" - same message as I had pieced together in an email to this list earlier today. The statement isn't intended to reflect anything said from the floor on the day. He also said some unscripted things, for which we don't have a transcript, but the link to the archived webcast (of the afternoon) has been widely circulated. -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 18:42:32 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:42:32 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Sha's closing remarks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interestingly the document seems to be developed before the consultation and handed out as part of an ending process of the meeting..............as an understood method that what would be discussed...........a diplomatic endorsement of course.......what comes to mind now is where is all this is leading to. 1. From the following ending paragraph, it can be seen that these points are to be reflected in the Secretary-General's report on enhanced cooperation, to be conveyed to the 66th Session of the General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council in 2011: "Similar to the consultation process to consider the desirability of continuation of the Internet Governance Forum, the views expressed through written contributions and the opinions expressed today will be reflected in the Secretary-General's report on enhanced cooperation, to be conveyed to the 66th Session of the General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council in 2011. Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, The open consultation on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet is now adjourned. Thank you." 2. These are part of the open consultations on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. 3. How are governments treating the issue of enhanced cooperation, something they want to keep amongst themselves or something they may be willing to share with all stakeholder groups within IGF as an inclusive, open and transparent process with regards to public policy pertaining to the Internet. 4. How will IGC respond to this now? On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 17:20:53 on > Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > >> [ A MIME application / pdf part was included here. ] > > Thanks for posting that. > > It's the formal closing statement which he didn't read out, on the grounds > that "everyone in the room has a copy". Which was unfortunate for the remote > participants :( > > The last paragraph describes what "happens next" - same message as I had > pieced together in an email to this list earlier today. The statement isn't > intended to reflect anything said from the floor on the day. > > He also said some unscripted things, for which we don't have a transcript, > but the link to the archived webcast (of the afternoon) has been widely > circulated. > -- > 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 > -- 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 19:06:04 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:06:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lula=B4s_speech_supporting_Wikile?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aks?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At least one head of state who has the ..... chestnuts ..... to come out openly for openness!!!! Rui 2010/12/10 Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza > Some of you may have already seen that, but here is President Lula´s > support for Wikileaks (with English subtitles) in a speech delivered > yesterday in Brasilia: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xAY7KkcUYk&feature=related > > Best, > Carlos > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 15 19:23:18 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:23:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Roland, When I think about the situation of interested people and organizations from developing countries, I tend to disagree with you. These organizations were mostly not aware of the IG debate during WSIS, so they have no accreditation in WSIS or ECOSOC. They have become increasingly aware on the last years (IGF taking place in different continents helped that), but they certainly did not have 5 years ask for ECOSOC accreditation. In addition to that, it takes human resources to map out and understand all the ECOSOC-CSTD-DESA ecosystem. Many organizations from developing countries are beginging to grasp all that, now that CSTD and DESA are being mainstreamed in conversations. Open consultations are positive, but they tend to give advantage to stakeholder based in developed countries (Europe, US) where most of the international organizations are based. Scarce resources in developing countries make us think twice before crossing an ocean to go to a meeting. It would be much easier to people from developing countries to attend if there is a formal invitation, if we can sit on the table and influence the process. It is too expensive to travel on the promise that maybe your organization will have the chance to make a statement, if time permits. Because of that and other reasons, I believe this decision from Dec 6 was arbitrary, anti-multistakeholder, anti-CS and anti-inclusion of people from developing countries. Marilia On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , > at 03:17:21 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes > > Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS with >> consultative status only? >> > > I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to decide > if they want to apply for consultative status, currently (in some cases for > longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux IP européens [my former > client] and ISOC. > > Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow a wider > audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well as their main > sessions. And I think there's been progress here - they are having their > third genuinely open consultation in a row later this week, even if the > "drafting the communique" part has become a government-only group. And the > main sessions last May had several "non-member" panellists invited to speak. > > There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - getting a > proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also getting your opinions > listened to in the short term. I'm not convinced that the latter is a huge > obstacle as long as you approach it sensitively, and doing that successfully > a few times often makes the former much easier. > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry >> wrote: >> >>> In message >> >>>> , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa >>>> >>> writes >>> >>>> But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what >>>> his conclusion of that meeting was. >>>> >>> >>> There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended to >>> 31st December about a month ago. >>> >>> A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are expected >>> to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for >>> pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by the >>> Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session >>> through ECOSOC". That's end of 2011. >>> >>> The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more substantial >>>> I guess. >>>> >>> >>> There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation, >>> other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th >>> Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this >>> year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing a >>> report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous >>> consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June >>> usually). >>> >>> ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's still >>> current: >>> >>> "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS and >>> are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the follow >>> up to WSIS" >>> >>> >> D=4839> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com<0%2BImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>>, >>>>> at 10:29:22 on Wed, >>>>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >>>>> >>>>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him >>>>>> to >>>>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two >>>>>> separate >>>>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: >>>>> >>>>> 21. Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of >>>>> WSIS, >>>>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of >>>>> the >>>>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct >>>>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be >>>>> complementary >>>>> to one another, >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> 24. Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive >>>>> consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to >>>>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced >>>>> cooperation... >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Roland Perry >>>>> >>>> > -- > 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed Dec 15 19:35:29 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:35:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4D095ED1.1020102@eff.org> I agree with Marilia. However, I am not sure if this is a developing countries only problem. It was not an EFF priority to have an ECOSOC status. While we are recently applying for an ECOSOC status, this status will only be approved next year. The same applies for the travel funding for us. Since we are a membership organization, we have strong restrictions on using core EFF funding for travel expenses. So we also think 10 times (or more) before we travel to any place. It is indeed to expensive for a non for profit organization and we need to measure that with other priorities (and time allocate to a certain issue), etc etc etc On 12/15/10 4:23 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Roland, > > When I think about the situation of interested people and > organizations from developing countries, I tend to disagree with you. > These organizations were mostly not aware of the IG debate during > WSIS, so they have no accreditation in WSIS or ECOSOC. They have > become increasingly aware on the last years (IGF taking place in > different continents helped that), but they certainly did not have 5 > years ask for ECOSOC accreditation. In addition to that, it takes > human resources to map out and understand all the ECOSOC-CSTD-DESA > ecosystem. Many organizations from developing countries are beginging > to grasp all that, now that CSTD and DESA are being mainstreamed in > conversations. > > Open consultations are positive, but they tend to give advantage to > stakeholder based in developed countries (Europe, US) where most of > the international organizations are based. Scarce resources in > developing countries make us think twice before crossing an ocean to > go to a meeting. It would be much easier to people from developing > countries to attend if there is a formal invitation, if we can sit on > the table and influence the process. It is too expensive to travel on > the promise that maybe your organization will have the chance to make > a statement, if time permits. > > Because of that and other reasons, I believe this decision from Dec 6 > was arbitrary, anti-multistakeholder, anti-CS and anti-inclusion of > people from developing countries. > > Marilia > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message > >, at > 03:17:21 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa > writes > > Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS > with > consultative status only? > > > I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to > decide if they want to apply for consultative status, currently > (in some cases for longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, > Réseaux IP européens [my former client] and ISOC. > > Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow > a wider audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well > as their main sessions. And I think there's been progress here - > they are having their third genuinely open consultation in a row > later this week, even if the "drafting the communique" part has > become a government-only group. And the main sessions last May had > several "non-member" panellists invited to speak. > > There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - > getting a proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also > getting your opinions listened to in the short term. I'm not > convinced that the latter is a huge obstacle as long as you > approach it sensitively, and doing that successfully a few times > often makes the former much easier. > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message > > > , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa > > > > writes > > But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't > able to gather what > his conclusion of that meeting was. > > > There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions > was extended to > 31st December about a month ago. > > A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations > are expected > to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on > processes for > pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be > synthesised by the > Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA > 66th session > through ECOSOC". That's end of 2011. > > The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something > more substantial > I guess. > > > There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced > Cooperation, > other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD > (14th > Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just > like this > year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over > pre-releasing a > report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's > famous > consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC > (in June > usually). > > ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I > think's still > current: > > "Information for civil society entities that were > accredited to WSIS and > are interested in participating in the work of CSTD > regarding the follow > up to WSIS" > > > D=4839> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message > <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com > >, > at 10:29:22 on Wed, > 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry > > writes > > The chair's view was that the ECOSOC > resolution, which 'invited' him to > call the meeting, had defined Enhanced > CoOperation and IGF as two separate > projects ("if you want to change that - pass a > new resolution"). > > > Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: > > 21. Recognizes that the Internet Governance > related outcomes of WSIS, > namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' > and the convening of the > IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General > through two distinct > processes and further recognizes that the two > processes may be complementary > to one another, > > ... > > 24. Invites the UN Secretary General to > convene open and inclusive > consultations involving all member states and all > other stakeholders to > proceed with the process towards the > implementation of enhanced > cooperation... > > -- > Roland Perry > > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 19:36:06 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:36:06 +1200 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: UNESCAP has a Pacific office based in Suva and is a part of ECOSOC. There are other international organisations such as the UN and EU who have presence in the Pacific, in Fiji. We have Policy Advisers to various Pacific Island Governments through the SPC, SOPAC (which has been absorbed by SPC), PIFS etc. There is another organisation called the PITA. I wonder though if their views and those from civil society in the Pacific were considered and if there was an invitation extended to extract the views from Oceania. I agree with Mariela that often scarce resources makes developing countries think twice about sending physical representation. ICT will revolutionise, without a doubt, participation from Oceania. Kind Regards, Sala T (Fiji) On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Roland, > > When I think about the situation of interested people and organizations > from developing countries, I tend to disagree with you. These organizations > were mostly not aware of the IG debate during WSIS, so they have no > accreditation in WSIS or ECOSOC. They have become increasingly aware on the > last years (IGF taking place in different continents helped that), but they > certainly did not have 5 years ask for ECOSOC accreditation. In addition to > that, it takes human resources to map out and understand all the > ECOSOC-CSTD-DESA ecosystem. Many organizations from developing countries are > beginging to grasp all that, now that CSTD and DESA are being mainstreamed > in conversations. > > Open consultations are positive, but they tend to give advantage to > stakeholder based in developed countries (Europe, US) where most of the > international organizations are based. Scarce resources in developing > countries make us think twice before crossing an ocean to go to a meeting. > It would be much easier to people from developing countries to attend if > there is a formal invitation, if we can sit on the table and influence the > process. It is too expensive to travel on the promise that maybe your > organization will have the chance to make a statement, if time permits. > > Because of that and other reasons, I believe this decision from Dec 6 was > arbitrary, anti-multistakeholder, anti-CS and anti-inclusion of people from > developing countries. > > Marilia > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message , >> at 03:17:21 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa >> writes >> >> Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS with >>> consultative status only? >>> >> >> I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to decide >> if they want to apply for consultative status, currently (in some cases for >> longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux IP européens [my former >> client] and ISOC. >> >> Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow a wider >> audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well as their main >> sessions. And I think there's been progress here - they are having their >> third genuinely open consultation in a row later this week, even if the >> "drafting the communique" part has become a government-only group. And the >> main sessions last May had several "non-member" panellists invited to speak. >> >> There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - getting a >> proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also getting your opinions >> listened to in the short term. I'm not convinced that the latter is a huge >> obstacle as long as you approach it sensitively, and doing that successfully >> a few times often makes the former much easier. >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In message >>> p2CSi6B7FkCqYrKaOq_fpEhT8CyN44SBQp7gT at mail.gmail.com >>>> >>>>> , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa >>>>> >>>> writes >>>> >>>>> But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what >>>>> his conclusion of that meeting was. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended to >>>> 31st December about a month ago. >>>> >>>> A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are expected >>>> to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for >>>> pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by the >>>> Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session >>>> through ECOSOC". That's end of 2011. >>>> >>>> The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more substantial >>>>> I guess. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation, >>>> other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th >>>> Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this >>>> year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing a >>>> report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous >>>> consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June >>>> usually). >>>> >>>> ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's still >>>> current: >>>> >>>> "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS and >>>> are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the follow >>>> up to WSIS" >>>> >>>> < >>>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=9128&lang=1&intItemI >>>> D=4839> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com<0%2BImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>>, >>>>>> at 10:29:22 on Wed, >>>>>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >>>>>> >>>>>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two >>>>>>> separate >>>>>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: >>>>>> >>>>>> 21. Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of >>>>>> WSIS, >>>>>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of >>>>>> the >>>>>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two >>>>>> distinct >>>>>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be >>>>>> complementary >>>>>> to one another, >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> 24. Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive >>>>>> consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders >>>>>> to >>>>>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced >>>>>> cooperation... >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Roland Perry >>>>>> >>>>> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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 > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 19:58:15 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:58:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) Message-ID: For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is astounding. First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person of the Year: 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg rating (all voters) 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) [snip] 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) [snip] See http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of the Year reserve the right to disagree." And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are their own readers and customers. With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook friends." TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal endorsement. But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or slave entity. Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of transparency sometimes called robust criticism. Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 20:08:24 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:08:24 +1200 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is really interesting Paul and to me it raises the issues of whether:- 1) there really is a democracy and should we assume that there should be a democracy? 2) what is the philosophical emphasis of this move by Time? 3)Who determines the governance system within the election of "Time Magazine's Person of the year"? 4)Who owns Time Magazine? Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of > the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is > astounding. > > First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time > Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in > first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person > of the Year: > > 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg > rating (all voters) > 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% > 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) > 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) > [snip] > 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) > 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). > 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) > 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) > [snip] > See > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html > > SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? > > Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the > direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of > the Year reserve the right to disagree." > > And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are > their own readers and customers. > > With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the > 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than > one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and > got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for > Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html > > But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than > choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the > Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 > Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: > > Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, > while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency > (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average > people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government > officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens > in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier > for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens > who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook > friends." > > TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely > stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal > endorsement. > > But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social > media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless > had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a > Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of > accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and > corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. > > Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force > transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the > master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever > asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or > slave entity. > > Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore > its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling > when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to > the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and > Wikileaks. > > In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters > and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues > to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of > transparency sometimes called robust criticism. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 22:31:25 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:31:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the year different to their readers? Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person of the year bound by any reader support? To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the right to disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own choice is frankly stupid. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Lehto To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is astounding. First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person of the Year: 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg rating (all voters) 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) [snip] 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) [snip] See http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of the Year reserve the right to disagree." And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are their own readers and customers. With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook friends." TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal endorsement. But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or slave entity. Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of transparency sometimes called robust criticism. Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Dec 15 22:54:55 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:54:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads and sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it afraid of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors can do what they want. Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised is at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even if indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates but the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:- 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news and getting you to pay for it; 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat to US National Security and risk being sanctioned. This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article from the NYT:- Breaking News Alert The New York Times Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET ----- U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge dissemination of classified government documents, are looking for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the information. Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein < goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the > year > different to their readers? > > Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person of > the > year bound by any reader support? > > To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the right > to > disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own > choice is > frankly stupid. > > David > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Paul Lehto > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia > Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza > Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM > Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO > must > be Transparent) > > For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of > the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is > astounding. > > First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time > Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in > first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person > of the Year: > > 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg > rating (all voters) > 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% > 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) > 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) > [snip] > 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) > 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). > 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) > 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) > [snip] > See > > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html > > > SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? > > Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the > direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of > the Year reserve the right to disagree." > > And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are > their own readers and customers. > > With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the > 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than > one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and > got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for > Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html > > But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than > choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the > Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 > Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: > > Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, > while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency > (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average > people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government > officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens > in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier > for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens > who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook > friends." > > TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely > stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal > endorsement. > > But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social > media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless > had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a > Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of > accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and > corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. > > Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force > transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the > master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever > asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or > slave entity. > > Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore > its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling > when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to > the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and > Wikileaks. > > In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters > and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues > to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of > transparency sometimes called robust criticism. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 15 22:59:10 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:59:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Contribution to CSTD inter-sessional panel and to outreach Message-ID: Dear all, The document attached is: a) a contribution to the development of CS arguments about the importance of multistakeholder participation in the work of the CSTD regarding the IGF. It is a result of my need to learn more about the WSIS process and the role of CSTD. I read the main resolutions and reports published over the last years and wrote a summary of key-points, at first to my use and study only. Then I thought that this summary could be useful to others who did not participate in WSIS. b) A contribution for enhancing our outreach. To mobilize other organizations, it is important that we all make efforts to explain the main points CS is dealing with now, that can be very complicated for people who did not have the chance to follow the process from the start. If the coordinators believe it is useful, this doc could be upload (do we have a wiki?) for corrections, comments, detailing, etc. This way we would always have an updated text and would have access to important references, resolutions numbers, etc more easily. Best, Marilia -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Note participation of CS in IGF improvement.doc Type: application/msword Size: 72704 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Dec 15 22:59:32 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:59:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <214758.95212.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or opinion polls they conduct before they write an editorial. ________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Cc: Paul Lehto ; Rui Correia ; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads and sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it afraid of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors can do what they want. Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised is at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even if indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates but the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:- 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news and getting you to pay for it; 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat to US National Security and risk being sanctioned. This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article from the NYT:- Breaking News Alert The New York Times Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET ----- U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge dissemination of classified government documents, are looking for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the information. Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State Department files from a government computer system. If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein wrote: Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the year >different to their readers? > >Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person of the >year bound by any reader support? > >To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the right to >disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own choice is >frankly stupid. > >David > > > > > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Paul Lehto >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia >Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM >Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must >be Transparent) > > >For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of >the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is >astounding. > >First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time >Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in >first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person >of the Year: > >1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg >rating (all voters) >2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% >3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) >4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) >[snip] >6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) >8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). >9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) >10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) >[snip] >See >http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html > > > >SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? > >Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the >direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of >the Year reserve the right to disagree." > >And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are >their own readers and customers. > >With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the >10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than >one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and >got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for >Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). >http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html > >But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than >choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the >Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 >Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: > >Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, >while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency >(and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average >people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government >officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens >in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier >for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens >who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook >friends." > >TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely >stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal >endorsement. > >But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social >media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless >had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a >Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of >accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and >corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. > >Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force >transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the >master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever >asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or >slave entity. > >Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore >its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling >when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to >the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and >Wikileaks. > >In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters >and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues >to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of >transparency sometimes called robust criticism. > >Paul Lehto, J.D. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 23:02:08 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:02:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: <214758.95212.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <214758.95212.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Respectfully, that is your presumption. You cannot presume to know what my expectations are. That being said, I would proffer that each context is different and that is why I had raised the questions I had raised initially. :) On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, David Goldstein < goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other > publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or opinion > polls they conduct before they write an editorial. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein < > goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> > *Cc:* Paul Lehto ; Rui Correia < > correia.rui at gmail.com>; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza < > caffsouza at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle > over WHO must be Transparent) > > At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads and > sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it afraid > of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors can > do what they want. > > Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised is > at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even if > indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and > exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates but > the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:- > > 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news and > getting you to pay for it; > 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat to > US National Security and risk being sanctioned. > > This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the > internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article from > the NYT:- > > > > > Breaking News Alert > The New York Times > Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET > ----- > U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder > Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the > WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge > dissemination of classified government documents, are looking > for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an > Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the > information. > Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether > Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. > Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State > Department files from a government computer system. If he did > so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in > the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents > who then published them. > Read More: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein < > goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the >> year >> different to their readers? >> >> Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person of >> the >> year bound by any reader support? >> >> To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the >> right to >> disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own >> choice is >> frankly stupid. >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Paul Lehto >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia >> Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM >> Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO >> must >> be Transparent) >> >> For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of >> the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is >> astounding. >> >> First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time >> Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in >> first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person >> of the Year: >> >> 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg >> rating (all voters) >> 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% >> 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) >> 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) >> [snip] >> 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) >> 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). >> 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) >> 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) >> [snip] >> See >> >> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html >> >> >> SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? >> >> Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the >> direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of >> the Year reserve the right to disagree." >> >> And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are >> their own readers and customers. >> >> With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the >> 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than >> one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and >> got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for >> Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). >> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html >> >> But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than >> choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the >> Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 >> Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: >> >> Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, >> while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency >> (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average >> people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government >> officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens >> in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier >> for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens >> who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook >> friends." >> >> TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely >> stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal >> endorsement. >> >> But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social >> media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless >> had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a >> Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of >> accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and >> corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. >> >> Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force >> transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the >> master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever >> asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or >> slave entity. >> >> Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore >> its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling >> when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to >> the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and >> Wikileaks. >> >> In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters >> and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues >> to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of >> transparency sometimes called robust criticism. >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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." > > > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 23:09:47 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:09:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] Contribution to CSTD inter-sessional panel and to outreach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6836B485-A6D3-42CC-A3FA-5FC2DE983628@ciroap.org> On 16/12/2010, at 11:59 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > If the coordinators believe it is useful, this doc could be upload (do we have a wiki?) for corrections, comments, detailing, etc. This way we would always have an updated text and would have access to important references, resolutions numbers, etc more easily. Thanks Marilia, this is really useful. We will have a wiki, and this will be part of it. I'll be working on significant improvements to the IGC Web site over Christmas (ho ho ho). -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Dec 15 23:25:41 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:25:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, Isn't Time a business and its cover a marketing gimmick. maybe the readers who voted and figured a business would care what they thought should be upset (i read TIme, but did not vote, why would i?), but other than that, what difference could this possibly make. besides Assange was on the cover 2 weeks ago. a. On 15 Dec 2010, at 19:58, Paul Lehto wrote: > For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of > the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is > astounding. > > First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time > Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in > first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person > of the Year: > > 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg > rating (all voters) > 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% > 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) > 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) > [snip] > 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) > 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). > 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) > 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) > [snip] > See http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html > > SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? > > Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the > direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of > the Year reserve the right to disagree." > > And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are > their own readers and customers. > > With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the > 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than > one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and > got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for > Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html > > But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than > choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the > Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 > Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: > > Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, > while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency > (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average > people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government > officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens > in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier > for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens > who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook > friends." > > TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely > stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal > endorsement. > > But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social > media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless > had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a > Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of > accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and > corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. > > Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force > transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the > master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever > asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or > slave entity. > > Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore > its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling > when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to > the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and > Wikileaks. > > In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters > and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues > to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of > transparency sometimes called robust criticism. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 aizu at anr.org Wed Dec 15 23:30:44 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:30:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <177875D9-B144-4CC9-A0EF-A52D0D73771E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> <8tBUPpencPCNFAbq@internetpolicyagency.com> <177875D9-B144-4CC9-A0EF-A52D0D73771E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: I could only watch the very end of formal statements, Iran, and then first few for the "free" discussion, Chair's lengthy remarks and Saudi Arabia's intervention. Could you pull out some points which are of good reference for us, IGC, to make interventions for tomorrows CSTD IGF consultation meeting in Geneva, here? I think we need to make the case for Multistakeholder approach, the benefits, to show the CSTD consultation participants, as Bill pointed out, more specific than current statement we agreed. Thanks, izumi 2010/12/16 Drake William : > Hi > > I agree, when there's an agenda and purported mandate like this, arguing on other grounds is unlikely to get very far. > > BTW I should clarify that my comment below pertained only to the afternoon session, I didn't see the morning session with ISOC ICANN CONGO etc as it's not online. > > Bill > > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7 at graduateinstitute.ch>, at 11:02:27 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Drake William writes >>> The government representatives were all on topic.  With a few exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state of the world, etc. >> >> The chair was looking for proposals on what to do - to get Enhanced CoOperation off the ground. >> >> He wasn't very impressed by people who said "you've missed the point, IGF is working fine" or "everything's OK, nothing new needed". >> >> Despite the popular view that "doing nothing" might indeed be the best option, the chair pointed out that he had a resolution in front of him saying that "something must be done". Which, in politics, often becomes "this is something - we must do it". >> >>> It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and necessity of a multistakeholder process. >> >> And the rather shaky start to his consultation in Sharm, as well as the "poster incident", probably didn't endear the less formal IGF process to those more used to New York protocols. >> >>> Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC. >> >> I did get the impression that many speakers were "our man in New York", whereas in Geneva we seem to see faces more familiar with the long term process. Again, with a few notable exceptions (in both directions, when the CSTD is involved). >> -- >> 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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and >  Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.williamdrake.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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 23:33:45 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:33:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At the end of the day, it's about anything that increases the "bottom line", I suppose if is to spark and generate controversy and if that creates an increase in "sales" then I can see why they would be inclined to but if anything, what we are seeing is a crisis of "ethics" and "values". What do we "value"? Do we value "transparency"? If the $$$ causes one to determine decisions (which is almost 99% of the time true in a commercial context) at any cost (maybe that's exaggerating)...but if the opportunity cost is "transparency"....hmmmm On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > Isn't Time a business and its cover a marketing gimmick. > > maybe the readers who voted and figured a business would care what they > thought should be upset (i read TIme, but did not vote, why would i?), but > other than that, what difference could this possibly make. > > besides Assange was on the cover 2 weeks ago. > > a. > > On 15 Dec 2010, at 19:58, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of > > the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is > > astounding. > > > > First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time > > Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in > > first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person > > of the Year: > > > > 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg > > rating (all voters) > > 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% > > 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) > > 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) > > [snip] > > 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) > > 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). > > 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) > > 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) > > [snip] > > See > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html > > > > SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? > > > > Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the > > direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of > > the Year reserve the right to disagree." > > > > And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are > > their own readers and customers. > > > > With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the > > 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than > > one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and > > got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for > > Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). > > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html > > > > But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than > > choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the > > Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 > > Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: > > > > Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, > > while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency > > (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average > > people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government > > officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens > > in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier > > for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens > > who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook > > friends." > > > > TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely > > stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal > > endorsement. > > > > But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social > > media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless > > had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a > > Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of > > accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and > > corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. > > > > Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force > > transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the > > master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever > > asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or > > slave entity. > > > > Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore > > its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling > > when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to > > the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and > > Wikileaks. > > > > In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters > > and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues > > to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of > > transparency sometimes called robust criticism. > > > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 23:34:20 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 07:34:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <214758.95212.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is actually nothing to do with Internet Governance...not even remotely. It's completely Off-Topic for this list AND the original posting contained a Godwin, so let's let it rest, eh? We have actual important topics to discuss. -- 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, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Respectfully, that is your presumption. You cannot presume to know what my > expectations are. That being said, I would proffer that each context is > different and that is why I had raised the questions I had raised initially. > > :) > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, David Goldstein > wrote: >> >> Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other >> publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or opinion >> polls they conduct before they write an editorial. >> ________________________________ >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein >> >> Cc: Paul Lehto ; Rui Correia >> ; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >> >> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over >> WHO must be Transparent) >> >> At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads and >> sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it afraid >> of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors can >> do what they want. >> >> Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised is >> at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even if >> indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and >> exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates but >> the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:- >> >> 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news and >> getting you to pay for it; >> 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat to >> US National Security and risk being sanctioned. >> >> This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the >> internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article from >> the NYT:- >> >> >> >> >> Breaking News Alert >> The New York Times >> Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET >> ----- >> U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder >> Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the >> WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge >> dissemination of classified government documents, are looking >> for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an >> Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the >> information. >> Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether >> Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. >> Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State >> Department files from a government computer system. If he did >> so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in >> the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents >> who then published them. >> Read More: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein >> wrote: >>> >>> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the >>> year >>> different to their readers? >>> >>> Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person >>> of the >>> year bound by any reader support? >>> >>> To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the >>> right to >>> disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own >>> choice is >>> frankly stupid. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Paul Lehto >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia >>> Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM >>> Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO >>> must >>> be Transparent) >>> >>> For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of >>> the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is >>> astounding. >>> >>> First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time >>> Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in >>> first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person >>> of the Year: >>> >>> 1. Julian Assange                     382,026 votes, and 92% avg >>> rating (all voters) >>> 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan          233,639 (avg rating 80% >>> 3. Lady Gaga                          146,378 (avg rating 70%) >>> 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber  78,145, (avg rating 81%) >>> [snip] >>> 6.  Barack Obama                     27,478 (avg rating 58%) >>> 8.  the Chilean Miners                29,124 (avg rating 47%). >>> 9.  The Unemployed American   19,605 (avg rating 66%) >>> 10. Marc Zuckerberg                  18,353 (avg rating 52%) >>> [snip] >>> See >>> >>> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html >>> >>> >>> SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? >>> >>> Well....    There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the >>> direct effect that  "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of >>> the Year reserve the right to disagree." >>> >>> And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are >>> their own readers and customers. >>> >>> With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the >>> 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than >>> one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and >>> got only about half the positive ranking of Assange  (52% for >>> Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). >>> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html >>> >>> But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than >>> choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the >>> Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 >>> Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: >>> >>> Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, >>> while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency >>> (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average >>> people.  Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government >>> officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens >>> in certain contexts.  Things like Facebook make it enormously easier >>> for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens >>> who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook >>> friends." >>> >>> TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely >>> stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal >>> endorsement. >>> >>> But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social >>> media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless >>> had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a >>> Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of >>> accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and >>> corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. >>> >>> Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force >>> transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the >>> master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever >>> asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or >>> slave entity. >>> >>> Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore >>> its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling >>> when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to >>> the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and >>> Wikileaks. >>> >>> In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters >>> and descending slaves is clear.  Unless, of course, Assange continues >>> to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of >>> transparency sometimes called robust criticism. >>> >>> Paul Lehto, J.D. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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." >> >> > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 23:41:32 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:41:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <214758.95212.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Who determines what is off topic and what is not? On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM, McTim wrote: > This is actually nothing to do with Internet Governance...not even > remotely. > > It's completely Off-Topic for this list AND the original posting > contained a Godwin, so let's let it rest, eh? We have actual > important topics to discuss. > > -- > 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, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Respectfully, that is your presumption. You cannot presume to know what > my > > expectations are. That being said, I would proffer that each context is > > different and that is why I had raised the questions I had raised > initially. > > > > :) > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, David Goldstein > > wrote: > >> > >> Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other > >> publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or > opinion > >> polls they conduct before they write an editorial. > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > >> > >> Cc: Paul Lehto ; Rui Correia > >> ; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza > >> > >> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM > >> Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle > over > >> WHO must be Transparent) > >> > >> At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads > and > >> sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it > afraid > >> of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors > can > >> do what they want. > >> > >> Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised > is > >> at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even > if > >> indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and > >> exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates > but > >> the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:- > >> > >> 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news > and > >> getting you to pay for it; > >> 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat > to > >> US National Security and risk being sanctioned. > >> > >> This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the > >> internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article > from > >> the NYT:- > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Breaking News Alert > >> The New York Times > >> Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET > >> ----- > >> U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder > >> Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the > >> WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge > >> dissemination of classified government documents, are looking > >> for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an > >> Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the > >> information. > >> Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether > >> Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. > >> Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State > >> Department files from a government computer system. If he did > >> so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in > >> the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents > >> who then published them. > >> Read More: > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the > >>> year > >>> different to their readers? > >>> > >>> Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person > >>> of the > >>> year bound by any reader support? > >>> > >>> To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the > >>> right to > >>> disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own > >>> choice is > >>> frankly stupid. > >>> > >>> David > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ---- > >>> From: Paul Lehto > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia > >>> Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza > >>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM > >>> Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over > WHO > >>> must > >>> be Transparent) > >>> > >>> For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of > >>> the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is > >>> astounding. > >>> > >>> First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time > >>> Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in > >>> first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person > >>> of the Year: > >>> > >>> 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg > >>> rating (all voters) > >>> 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% > >>> 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) > >>> 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) > >>> [snip] > >>> 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) > >>> 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). > >>> 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) > >>> 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) > >>> [snip] > >>> See > >>> > >>> > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html > >>> > >>> > >>> SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? > >>> > >>> Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the > >>> direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of > >>> the Year reserve the right to disagree." > >>> > >>> And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are > >>> their own readers and customers. > >>> > >>> With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the > >>> 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than > >>> one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and > >>> got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for > >>> Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). > >>> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html > >>> > >>> But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than > >>> choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the > >>> Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 > >>> Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: > >>> > >>> Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, > >>> while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency > >>> (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average > >>> people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government > >>> officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens > >>> in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier > >>> for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens > >>> who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook > >>> friends." > >>> > >>> TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely > >>> stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal > >>> endorsement. > >>> > >>> But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social > >>> media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless > >>> had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a > >>> Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of > >>> accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and > >>> corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. > >>> > >>> Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force > >>> transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the > >>> master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever > >>> asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or > >>> slave entity. > >>> > >>> Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore > >>> its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling > >>> when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to > >>> the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and > >>> Wikileaks. > >>> > >>> In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters > >>> and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues > >>> to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of > >>> transparency sometimes called robust criticism. > >>> > >>> Paul Lehto, J.D. > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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." > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 23:44:51 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:44:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> Message-ID: McTim, The fact that that lady is sitting there, she is there as a Portugal representative, authorised to represent the views of her people and if she was raising the issue of the benefits that ICT or access to ICT brings, then that is her country's view. To call her "crazy woman with pirate patch" is discriminatory and disrespectful. Sala (Fiji) On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:34 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Webcast is likely to be stored here: > > > > http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html > > > skip the first 20 minutes, crazy woman with pirate patch goes > completely off-topic.."Will no one think of the children" screed. > > Not a word about EC. > > -- > 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 > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 23:53:39 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:53:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <214758.95212.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <35379.37604.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> "This list is for a) public discussion of Internet governance issues, and b) coordination of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). The IGC comprises individuals who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. The IGC's charter and further information can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/" http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance But it has to be noted there are often topics that most definitely do not fit within this definition... ________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 3:41:32 PM Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) Who determines what is off topic and what is not? On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM, McTim wrote: This is actually nothing to do with Internet Governance...not even remotely. > >It's completely Off-Topic for this list AND the original posting >contained a Godwin, so let's let it rest, eh? We have actual >important topics to discuss. > >-- >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, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Respectfully, that is your presumption. You cannot presume to know what my >> expectations are. That being said, I would proffer that each context is >> different and that is why I had raised the questions I had raised initially. >> >> :) >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, David Goldstein >> wrote: >>> >>> Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other >>> publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or opinion >>> polls they conduct before they write an editorial. >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein >>> >>> Cc: Paul Lehto ; Rui Correia >>> ; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >>> >>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over >>> WHO must be Transparent) >>> >>> At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads and >>> sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it afraid >>> of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors can >>> do what they want. >>> >>> Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised is >>> at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even if >>> indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and >>> exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates but >>> the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:- >>> >>> 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news and >>> getting you to pay for it; >>> 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat to >>> US National Security and risk being sanctioned. >>> >>> This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the >>> internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article from >>> the NYT:- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Breaking News Alert >>> The New York Times >>> Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET >>> ----- >>> U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder >>> Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the >>> WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge >>> dissemination of classified government documents, are looking >>> for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an >>> Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the >>> information. >>> Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether >>> Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. >>> Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State >>> Department files from a government computer system. If he did >>> so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in >>> the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents >>> who then published them. >>> Read More: >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the >>>> year >>>> different to their readers? >>>> >>>> Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person >>>> of the >>>> year bound by any reader support? >>>> >>>> To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the >>>> right to >>>> disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own >>>> choice is >>>> frankly stupid. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>> From: Paul Lehto >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia >>>> Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >>>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM >>>> Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO >>>> must >>>> be Transparent) >>>> >>>> For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of >>>> the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is >>>> astounding. >>>> >>>> First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time >>>> Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in >>>> first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person >>>> of the Year: >>>> >>>> 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg >>>> rating (all voters) >>>> 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% >>>> 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) >>>> 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) >>>> [snip] >>>> 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) >>>> 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). >>>> 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) >>>> 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) >>>> [snip] >>>> See >>>> >>>>http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html >>>>l >>>> >>>> >>>> SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? >>>> >>>> Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the >>>> direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of >>>> the Year reserve the right to disagree." >>>> >>>> And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are >>>> their own readers and customers. >>>> >>>> With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the >>>> 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than >>>> one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and >>>> got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for >>>> Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). >>>> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html >>>> >>>> But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than >>>> choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the >>>> Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 >>>> Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: >>>> >>>> Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, >>>> while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency >>>> (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average >>>> people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government >>>> officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens >>>> in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier >>>> for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens >>>> who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook >>>> friends." >>>> >>>> TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely >>>> stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal >>>> endorsement. >>>> >>>> But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social >>>> media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless >>>> had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a >>>> Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of >>>> accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and >>>> corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. >>>> >>>> Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force >>>> transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the >>>> master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever >>>> asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or >>>> slave entity. >>>> >>>> Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore >>>> its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling >>>> when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to >>>> the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and >>>> Wikileaks. >>>> >>>> In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters >>>> and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues >>>> to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of >>>> transparency sometimes called robust criticism. >>>> >>>> Paul Lehto, J.D. >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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." >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 15 23:54:14 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:54:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: <638020DB-3DE9-4982-892E-BDA3215D7850@corp.arin.net> References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> <638020DB-3DE9-4982-892E-BDA3215D7850@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: I enjoyed watching the video cast and hearing the different perspectives. One thing is certain, is that we can do what we can to being an appreciation of "internet governance" amongst those in governments, particularly here in Oceania, where IG is virtually new. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:25 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Drake William wrote: > > > The government representatives were all on topic. With a few exceptions, > the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, long self > indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state of the > world, etc. It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the > superiority and necessity of a multistakeholder process. Reminiscent of > some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores that Geneva is a better > setting for us than NYC. > > > > Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly > intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere…. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > Bill - > > Did you feel that the NRO or ISOC comments were off-topic? > > /John > > (who spoke on behalf of the > NRO)____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 00:02:02 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:02:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7@graduateinstitute.ch> <8tBUPpencPCNFAbq@internetpolicyagency.com> <177875D9-B144-4CC9-A0EF-A52D0D73771E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Dear Izumi-San, The UK representative commeded Marcus K and the multistakeholdership aspects of the IGF and how it has grown over the past 5 years. This is about 30 minutes into the Webcast. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I could only watch the very end of formal statements, Iran, and then > first few for the "free" discussion, Chair's lengthy remarks and Saudi > Arabia's intervention. > > Could you pull out some points which are of good reference for us, IGC, > to make interventions for tomorrows CSTD IGF consultation meeting > in Geneva, here? > > I think we need to make the case for Multistakeholder approach, > the benefits, to show the CSTD consultation participants, as Bill > pointed out, more specific than current statement we agreed. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > 2010/12/16 Drake William : > > Hi > > > > I agree, when there's an agenda and purported mandate like this, arguing > on other grounds is unlikely to get very far. > > > > BTW I should clarify that my comment below pertained only to the > afternoon session, I didn't see the morning session with ISOC ICANN CONGO > etc as it's not online. > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > >> In message <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7 at graduateinstitute.ch>, > at 11:02:27 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Drake William < > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> writes > >>> The government representatives were all on topic. With a few > exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, > long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state > of the world, etc. > >> > >> The chair was looking for proposals on what to do - to get Enhanced > CoOperation off the ground. > >> > >> He wasn't very impressed by people who said "you've missed the point, > IGF is working fine" or "everything's OK, nothing new needed". > >> > >> Despite the popular view that "doing nothing" might indeed be the best > option, the chair pointed out that he had a resolution in front of him > saying that "something must be done". Which, in politics, often becomes > "this is something - we must do it". > >> > >>> It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and > necessity of a multistakeholder process. > >> > >> And the rather shaky start to his consultation in Sharm, as well as the > "poster incident", probably didn't endear the less formal IGF process to > those more used to New York protocols. > >> > >>> Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores > that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC. > >> > >> I did get the impression that many speakers were "our man in New York", > whereas in Geneva we seem to see faces more familiar with the long term > process. Again, with a few notable exceptions (in both directions, when the > CSTD is involved). > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > Senior Associate > > Centre for International Governance > > Graduate Institute of International and > > Development Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.williamdrake.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 > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Dec 16 00:02:19 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:02:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] report coming Message-ID: <6CDAFF42-E0A0-4D21-95CC-99BD3F2A100D@post.harvard.edu> Sorry for the delay. Tomorrow, when finally there is a bit of sleep, I will post a little report on Tuesday's Enhanced Cooperation consultation in New Yoork. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 16 00:04:22 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:04:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Hello, all Despite having to get up at 4 am and getting only 2 hours sleep the night before, and despite incredibly cold weather that froze the fuel line on the small propellor-powered US Air plane and caused a three-hour delay in departure, I made it to the Dec 14 EC consultation, only about 80 minutes after the starting time. There were only about 50 people there. Noteworthy: the UN staff who handled our requests for participation were quite helpful. We sent emails to Elivira Doyle and she arranged badges for us and we got in. Although David Allen was the only IGC member formally scheduled for an intervention, during the discussion period I made a request to speak and was successful in making a rather pointed intervention, which caused Sha to launch into a 10-15 minute rebuttal, but which he also praised as on point. Sha himself encouraged discussion and seemed sincere about that although his trademark monologues may have consumed 40% of the available discussion time. I do have a printed copy of the IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) proposal, and since virtually all of the substantive debate was provoked by that proposal and the ideas underlying it, I plan to scan it at the office and email it to this list tomorrow - snow permitting (it's dropping about an inch an hour now) So this turned into a rather interesting debate on intergovernmentalism vs. multistakeholderism, which was sometimes disguised as a debate over whether Enhanced Cooperation (EC) and the IGF are "two distinct processes" but is really a debate over whether the Internet needs new institutions or should be governed by traditional nation-state systems. David Allen and I had lunch with the friendly Brazil representatives (Cesar Sauer was one of them) along with ISOC's Bill Graham. To the Brazil govt, the debate is between those who want "Change" in Internet governance and those who want to defend the status quo. My understanding of their position is that they believe that only an inter-governmental body is in a position to make real decisions and thus to bring about some kind of change toward real global governance of the internet. Unfortuantely, by global governance they think in pretty standard, old-fashioned sovereigntist terms as intergovernmental agreements. They think that the political forces at work within the IGF will prevent anything more substantive from happening, so to them the only alternative is to go intergovernmental. They would like to develop a framework of global public policy principles and believe that the discourse around that will smoke out the authoritarian states who won't be able to defend a more repressive approach. They don't see this as undermining IGF or MS, to them it's just another process made in addition to what is going on now. In other words, to them EC has little or nothing to do with multistakeholderism per se, but means new mechanisms for governments to cooperate. What they don't seem to understand is how such a new intergovernmental entity would shift attention and power away from the new MS institutions, especially IGF. I agreed with them that we need change, but that the IGF should be strengthened rather than relegated to the role of a talk shop. Why not have the IGF made recommendations? We had an interesting discussion on that, and even Bill Graham did not reject the idea outright, just pointed out some of the difficulties that would arise. They don't think of the Internet as a new polity or the basis for a new global governance institution. In my public comments, I expressed my belief that the IBSA proposal would fragment, rather than enhance, cooperation. One set of governments - the developing countries which includes both democracies and dictatorships - would go one way and the other set - Western, developed, would work within existing IG institutions. I tried to explain why the internet requires new, non-national governance institutions. I argued that the Internet "public" that requires "public policy" is more than a collection of 100+ national publics. I said I agreed with Brazil that we needed change but called openly for strengthening IGF rather than creating a new intergovernmental arrangement. My most pointed criticism - one that got the DESA people scurrying - was to ask why, if EC was a separate process from IGF, was the CSTD suddenly proposing to exclude CS and business from _developing recommendations for improvements in the IGF_!!! As noted before, Sha spent at least 10 minutes responding to me. He put a lot of emphasis on how EC and IGF were two distinct things. This sounds very convincing to the developing country governments, because it suggests that states can develop their own exclusive mechanisms for "cooperation." But it's really a hollow argument, because it ducks the question of why states need to do that in an exclusive way, and it signals that they are giving up on the IGF as an effective vehicle for change. Frankly, I think IBSA would be the doom of IGF - who would to go to it if a states-only process is going on in parallel and instead of solving the problems of the IGF's weaknesses we simply create another thing that excludes two of the three involved sectors? And if you are truly in favor of the status quo, then you should embrace IBSA because it will be easy to isolate the critical states there. Note also that the loopiest NGO intervention came from a woman who's organization was indeed ECOSOC accredited. --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 aizu at anr.org Thu Dec 16 00:20:08 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:20:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Contribution to CSTD inter-sessional panel and to outreach In-Reply-To: <6836B485-A6D3-42CC-A3FA-5FC2DE983628@ciroap.org> References: <6836B485-A6D3-42CC-A3FA-5FC2DE983628@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Marilia and all, without knowing this, I was writing to ask you all to contribute this kind of messages, so this is very much welcome! What I started to write is as follows: Need for enhanced multistakeholder approach - Why multistakeholder so important? - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as CSTD IGF WG and EC consultation proces - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding non-governmental actors in the process So, instead of just repeating the importance of MSH, I think we should also prepare in concise language to explain why MSH is so important and benefits us all. Jeremy, in addition to wiki, which is great of course, could we prepare some portion of our current website that allow putting these materials as "reference" so that we can share our knowledge - ongoing. Well, I should do that, but not yet familiar with dealing with the CMS, if you could do that that will be great. izumi 2010/12/16 Jeremy Malcolm : > On 16/12/2010, at 11:59 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > If the coordinators believe it is useful, this doc could be upload (do we > have a wiki?) for corrections, comments, detailing, etc. This way we would > always have an updated text and would have access to important references, > resolutions numbers, etc more easily. > > Thanks Marilia, this is really useful.  We will have a wiki, and this will > be part of it.  I'll be working on significant improvements to the IGC Web > site over Christmas (ho ho ho). > -- > > 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. > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 00:21:58 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:21:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear Marilia, Katitza and Sala and all, I very much echo with what you said. Most Civil society members from both developing and developed countries have high hurdle to participate in the consultation process on EC or IGF type of "new", emerging, global issues in UN system. Of course, in general developed parts have less difficulties than developing, economically and other factors combined, and we should bring these on the table. So, while I will try to write some IGC statement of sort for Friday's IGF consultation meeting, I also very much appreciate if you could write your own and send it to the CSTD IGF consultation chair, and/or send to me and I can try to read out on behalf of you guys, in addition to, maybe, on behalf of IGC per se. I am not sure if that is accepted as the protocol, but since or if they do not prepare remote participation, that itself should also be pointed out and requested as we had great remote participation practice at this year IGF, we should instead make the case by doing so. CSTD secretariat is Mongi Hamdi Head of CSTD Secretariat UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) +41-(022)-917 2601 E-mail: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org izumi 2010/12/16 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > UNESCAP has a Pacific office based in Suva and is a part of ECOSOC. There > are other international organisations such as the UN and EU who have > presence in the Pacific, in Fiji. > > We have Policy Advisers to various Pacific Island Governments through the > SPC, SOPAC (which has been absorbed by SPC), PIFS etc. There is another > organisation called the PITA. I wonder though if their views and those from > civil society in the Pacific were considered and if there was an invitation > extended to extract the views from Oceania. > > I agree with Mariela that often scarce resources makes developing countries > think twice about sending physical representation. ICT will revolutionise, > without a doubt, participation from Oceania. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala T (Fiji) > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: >> >> Roland, >> >> When I think about the situation of interested people and organizations >> from developing countries, I tend to disagree with you. These organizations >> were mostly not aware of the IG debate during WSIS, so they have no >> accreditation in WSIS or ECOSOC. They have become increasingly aware on the >> last years (IGF taking place in different continents helped that), but they >> certainly did not have 5 years ask for ECOSOC accreditation. In addition to >> that, it takes human resources to map out and understand all the >> ECOSOC-CSTD-DESA ecosystem. Many organizations from developing countries are >> beginging to grasp all that, now that CSTD and DESA are being mainstreamed >> in conversations. >> >> Open consultations are positive, but they tend to give advantage to >> stakeholder based in developed countries (Europe, US) where most of the >> international organizations are based. Scarce resources in developing >> countries make us think twice before crossing an ocean to go to a meeting. >> It would be much easier to people from developing countries to attend if >> there is a formal invitation, if we can sit on the table and influence the >> process. It is too expensive to travel on the promise that maybe your >> organization will have the chance to make a statement, if time permits. >> >> Because of that and other reasons, I believe this decision from Dec 6 was >> arbitrary, anti-multistakeholder, anti-CS and anti-inclusion of people from >> developing countries. >> >> Marilia >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Roland Perry >> wrote: >>> >>> In message >>> , at 03:17:21 >>> on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >>>> >>>> Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS with >>>> consultative status only? >>> >>> I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to decide >>> if they want to apply for consultative status, currently (in some cases for >>> longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux IP européens [my former >>> client] and ISOC. >>> >>> Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow a wider >>> audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well as their main >>> sessions. And I think there's been progress here - they are having their >>> third genuinely open consultation in a row later this week, even if the >>> "drafting the communique" part has become a government-only group. And the >>> main sessions last May had several "non-member" panellists invited to speak. >>> >>> There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - getting a >>> proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also getting your opinions >>> listened to in the short term. I'm not convinced that the latter is a huge >>> obstacle as long as you approach it sensitively, and doing that successfully >>> a few times often makes the former much easier. >>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In message >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa >>>>> >>>>> writes >>>>>> >>>>>> But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what >>>>>> his conclusion of that meeting was. >>>>> >>>>> There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended >>>>> to >>>>> 31st December about a month ago. >>>>> >>>>> A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are expected >>>>> to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for >>>>> pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by >>>>> the >>>>> Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session >>>>> through ECOSOC".  That's end of 2011. >>>>> >>>>>> The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more >>>>>> substantial >>>>>> I guess. >>>>> >>>>> There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation, >>>>> other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th >>>>> Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this >>>>> year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing a >>>>> report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous >>>>> consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June >>>>> usually). >>>>> >>>>> ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's still >>>>> current: >>>>> >>>>> "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS >>>>> and >>>>> are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the >>>>> follow >>>>> up to WSIS" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> D=4839> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 10:29:22 >>>>>>> on Wed, >>>>>>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two >>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 21.     Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of >>>>>>> WSIS, >>>>>>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two >>>>>>> distinct >>>>>>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be >>>>>>> complementary >>>>>>> to one another, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 24.     Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and >>>>>>> inclusive >>>>>>> consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced >>>>>>> cooperation... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Roland Perry >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for 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 > > > > -- > 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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Dec 16 00:35:28 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:35:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 16 Dec 2010, at 00:04, Milton L Mueller wrote: > And if you are truly in favor of the status quo, then you should embrace IBSA because it will be easy to isolate the critical states there. I also question, if the governments go off and do their own thing, why would any of the Internet governance organizations ever comply with their decisions. Have they forgotten that one of the important reasons for the multistakeholder model was to give them an entry into the discussions, and that without a multistakeholder model, they have very little means of affecting anything? Yes, they can make some national laws and maybe even a framework treaty, but technology can always evolve around the laws and regimes they might create. the only way to achieve anything is through a multistakeholder processes where everyone buys into the legitimacy of the process to at least some extent. Or to put it another way, how does one achieve enhanced cooperation locked in room by ones self. 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Dec 16 00:37:51 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:37:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Milton for taking extra burden to reach the meeting out of snow/cold and providing useful insights, reports, as well as arguing for the MSH/IGF. Again, I like to draw ideas, just expressed well by you and others, to be fed into tomorrow's meeting here in Geneva. I know making formal consensus statement for IGC with 48 hours call is impossible, but I think it is still OK to make interventions by the coordinator provided proper process using this list is there. izumi 2010/12/16 Milton L Mueller : > Hello, all > Despite having to get up at 4 am and getting only 2 hours sleep the night before, and despite incredibly cold weather that froze the fuel line on the small propellor-powered US Air plane and caused a three-hour delay in departure, I made it to the Dec 14 EC consultation, only about 80 minutes after the starting time. > > There were only about 50 people there. > Noteworthy: the UN staff who handled our requests for participation were quite helpful. We sent emails to Elivira Doyle and she arranged badges for us and we got in. Although David Allen was the only IGC member formally scheduled for an intervention, during the discussion period I made a request to speak and was successful in making a rather pointed intervention, which caused Sha to launch into a 10-15 minute rebuttal, but which he also praised as on point. Sha himself encouraged discussion and seemed sincere about that although his trademark monologues may have consumed 40% of the available discussion time. > > I do have a printed copy of the IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) proposal, and since virtually all of the substantive debate was provoked by that proposal and the ideas underlying it, I plan to scan it at the office and email it to this list tomorrow - snow permitting (it's dropping about an inch an hour now) So this turned into a rather interesting debate on intergovernmentalism vs. multistakeholderism, which was sometimes disguised as a debate over whether Enhanced Cooperation (EC) and the IGF are "two distinct processes" but is really a debate over whether the Internet needs new institutions or should be governed by traditional nation-state systems. > > David Allen and I had lunch with the friendly Brazil representatives (Cesar Sauer was one of them) along with ISOC's Bill Graham. To the Brazil govt, the debate is between those who want "Change" in Internet governance and those who want to defend the status quo. My understanding of their position is that they believe that only an inter-governmental body is in a position to make real decisions and thus to bring about some kind of change toward real global governance of the internet. Unfortuantely, by global governance they think in pretty standard, old-fashioned sovereigntist terms as intergovernmental agreements. They think that the political forces at work within the IGF will prevent anything more substantive from happening, so to them the only alternative is to go intergovernmental. They would like to develop a framework of global public policy principles and believe that the discourse around that will smoke out the authoritarian states who won't be able to defend a more repressive approach. They don't see this as undermining IGF or MS, to them it's just another process made in addition to what is going on now. In other words, to them EC has little or nothing to do with multistakeholderism per se, but means new mechanisms for governments to cooperate. > > What they don't seem to understand is how such a new intergovernmental entity would shift attention and power away from the new MS institutions, especially IGF. I agreed with them that we need change, but that the IGF should be strengthened rather than relegated to the role of a talk shop. Why not have the IGF made recommendations? We had an interesting discussion on that, and even Bill Graham did not reject the idea outright, just pointed out some of the difficulties that would arise. They don't think of the Internet as a new polity or the basis for a new global governance institution. > > In my public comments, I expressed my belief that the IBSA proposal would fragment, rather than enhance, cooperation. One set of governments - the developing countries which includes both democracies and dictatorships - would go one way and the other set - Western, developed, would work within existing IG institutions. I tried to explain why the internet requires new, non-national governance institutions. I argued that the Internet "public" that requires "public policy" is more than a collection of 100+ national publics. I said I agreed with Brazil that we needed change but called openly for strengthening IGF rather than creating a new intergovernmental arrangement. My most pointed criticism - one that got the DESA people scurrying - was to ask why, if EC was a separate process from IGF, was the CSTD suddenly proposing to exclude CS and business from _developing recommendations for improvements in the IGF_!!! > > As noted before, Sha spent at least 10 minutes responding to me. He put a lot of emphasis on how EC and IGF were two distinct things. This sounds very convincing to the developing country governments, because it suggests that states can develop their own exclusive mechanisms for "cooperation." But it's really a hollow argument, because it ducks the question of why states need to do that in an exclusive way, and it signals that they are giving up on the IGF as an effective vehicle for change. Frankly, I think IBSA would be the doom of IGF - who would to go to it if a states-only process is going on in parallel and instead of solving the problems of the IGF's weaknesses we simply create another thing that excludes two of the three involved sectors? And if you are truly in favor of the status quo, then you should embrace IBSA because it will be easy to isolate the critical states there. > > Note also that the loopiest NGO intervention came from a woman who's organization was indeed ECOSOC accredited. > > --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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 00:40:28 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:40:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Excellent report Milton (and analysis). -- 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, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hello, all > Despite having to get up at 4 am and getting only 2 hours sleep the night before, and despite incredibly cold weather that froze the fuel line on the small propellor-powered US Air plane and caused a three-hour delay in departure, I made it to the Dec 14 EC consultation, only about 80 minutes after the starting time. > > There were only about 50 people there. > Noteworthy: the UN staff who handled our requests for participation were quite helpful. We sent emails to Elivira Doyle and she arranged badges for us and we got in. Although David Allen was the only IGC member formally scheduled for an intervention, during the discussion period I made a request to speak and was successful in making a rather pointed intervention, which caused Sha to launch into a 10-15 minute rebuttal, but which he also praised as on point. Sha himself encouraged discussion and seemed sincere about that although his trademark monologues may have consumed 40% of the available discussion time. > > I do have a printed copy of the IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) proposal, and since virtually all of the substantive debate was provoked by that proposal and the ideas underlying it, I plan to scan it at the office and email it to this list tomorrow - snow permitting (it's dropping about an inch an hour now) So this turned into a rather interesting debate on intergovernmentalism vs. multistakeholderism, which was sometimes disguised as a debate over whether Enhanced Cooperation (EC) and the IGF are "two distinct processes" but is really a debate over whether the Internet needs new institutions or should be governed by traditional nation-state systems. > > David Allen and I had lunch with the friendly Brazil representatives (Cesar Sauer was one of them) along with ISOC's Bill Graham. To the Brazil govt, the debate is between those who want "Change" in Internet governance and those who want to defend the status quo. My understanding of their position is that they believe that only an inter-governmental body is in a position to make real decisions and thus to bring about some kind of change toward real global governance of the internet. Unfortuantely, by global governance they think in pretty standard, old-fashioned sovereigntist terms as intergovernmental agreements. They think that the political forces at work within the IGF will prevent anything more substantive from happening, so to them the only alternative is to go intergovernmental. They would like to develop a framework of global public policy principles and believe that the discourse around that will smoke out the authoritarian states who won't be able to defend a more repressive approach. They don't see this as undermining IGF or MS, to them it's just another process made in addition to what is going on now. In other words, to them EC has little or nothing to do with multistakeholderism per se, but means new mechanisms for governments to cooperate. > > What they don't seem to understand is how such a new intergovernmental entity would shift attention and power away from the new MS institutions, especially IGF. I agreed with them that we need change, but that the IGF should be strengthened rather than relegated to the role of a talk shop. Why not have the IGF made recommendations? We had an interesting discussion on that, and even Bill Graham did not reject the idea outright, just pointed out some of the difficulties that would arise. They don't think of the Internet as a new polity or the basis for a new global governance institution. > > In my public comments, I expressed my belief that the IBSA proposal would fragment, rather than enhance, cooperation. One set of governments - the developing countries which includes both democracies and dictatorships - would go one way and the other set - Western, developed, would work within existing IG institutions. I tried to explain why the internet requires new, non-national governance institutions. I argued that the Internet "public" that requires "public policy" is more than a collection of 100+ national publics. I said I agreed with Brazil that we needed change but called openly for strengthening IGF rather than creating a new intergovernmental arrangement. My most pointed criticism - one that got the DESA people scurrying - was to ask why, if EC was a separate process from IGF, was the CSTD suddenly proposing to exclude CS and business from _developing recommendations for improvements in the IGF_!!! > > As noted before, Sha spent at least 10 minutes responding to me. He put a lot of emphasis on how EC and IGF were two distinct things. This sounds very convincing to the developing country governments, because it suggests that states can develop their own exclusive mechanisms for "cooperation." But it's really a hollow argument, because it ducks the question of why states need to do that in an exclusive way, and it signals that they are giving up on the IGF as an effective vehicle for change. Frankly, I think IBSA would be the doom of IGF - who would to go to it if a states-only process is going on in parallel and instead of solving the problems of the IGF's weaknesses we simply create another thing that excludes two of the three involved sectors? And if you are truly in favor of the status quo, then you should embrace IBSA because it will be easy to isolate the critical states there. > > Note also that the loopiest NGO intervention came from a woman who's organization was indeed ECOSOC accredited. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 00:45:48 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:45:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > McTim, > > The fact that that lady is sitting there, she is there as a Portugal > representative, authorised to represent the views of her people I know plenty of folk from Portugal with more clue than her, I would suggest that she is doing them a disservice by being unprepared. IIRC she told the room she was representing Haiti. and if she > was raising the issue of the benefits that ICT or access to ICT brings, then > that is her country's view. But it's nothing to do with EC, and she was mostly going on about students and Bookface. To call her "crazy woman with pirate patch" is > discriminatory and disrespectful. Perhaps, the patch thing was for identification only, as I didn't know her name. She was a bit crazed IMHO. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 16 00:48:42 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:48:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Thanks. I see from earlier posts that Parminder has sent the text of the IBSA proposal Also see that a URL with the videocast is also available. This allowed me to test my assertions about the length of Sha's responses against facts, and while it may be true that he consumed 40% of the discussion hour, his response to my 4 min intervention was 5 min, not 10 or 15. (My apologies to Mr. Sha - it only felt that long) ;-) --MM ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Drake William Subject: Re: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report Excellent report Milton (and analysis). -- 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, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hello, all > Despite having to get up at 4 am and getting only 2 hours sleep the night before, and despite incredibly cold weather that froze the fuel line on the small propellor-powered US Air plane and caused a three-hour delay in departure, I made it to the Dec 14 EC consultation, only about 80 minutes after the starting time. > > There were only about 50 people there. > Noteworthy: the UN staff who handled our requests for participation were quite helpful. We sent emails to Elivira Doyle and she arranged badges for us and we got in. Although David Allen was the only IGC member formally scheduled for an intervention, during the discussion period I made a request to speak and was successful in making a rather pointed intervention, which caused Sha to launch into a 10-15 minute rebuttal, but which he also praised as on point. Sha himself encouraged discussion and seemed sincere about that although his trademark monologues may have consumed 40% of the available discussion time. > > I do have a printed copy of the IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) proposal, and since virtually all of the substantive debate was provoked by that proposal and the ideas underlying it, I plan to scan it at the office and email it to this list tomorrow - snow permitting (it's dropping about an inch an hour now) So this turned into a rather interesting debate on intergovernmentalism vs. multistakeholderism, which was sometimes disguised as a debate over whether Enhanced Cooperation (EC) and the IGF are "two distinct processes" but is really a debate over whether the Internet needs new institutions or should be governed by traditional nation-state systems. > > David Allen and I had lunch with the friendly Brazil representatives (Cesar Sauer was one of them) along with ISOC's Bill Graham. To the Brazil govt, the debate is between those who want "Change" in Internet governance and those who want to defend the status quo. My understanding of their position is that they believe that only an inter-governmental body is in a position to make real decisions and thus to bring about some kind of change toward real global governance of the internet. Unfortuantely, by global governance they think in pretty standard, old-fashioned sovereigntist terms as intergovernmental agreements. They think that the political forces at work within the IGF will prevent anything more substantive from happening, so to them the only alternative is to go intergovernmental. They would like to develop a framework of global public policy principles and believe that the discourse around that will smoke out the authoritarian states who won't be able to defend a more repressive approach. They don't see this as undermining IGF or MS, to them it's just another process made in addition to what is going on now. In other words, to them EC has little or nothing to do with multistakeholderism per se, but means new mechanisms for governments to cooperate. > > What they don't seem to understand is how such a new intergovernmental entity would shift attention and power away from the new MS institutions, especially IGF. I agreed with them that we need change, but that the IGF should be strengthened rather than relegated to the role of a talk shop. Why not have the IGF made recommendations? We had an interesting discussion on that, and even Bill Graham did not reject the idea outright, just pointed out some of the difficulties that would arise. They don't think of the Internet as a new polity or the basis for a new global governance institution. > > In my public comments, I expressed my belief that the IBSA proposal would fragment, rather than enhance, cooperation. One set of governments - the developing countries which includes both democracies and dictatorships - would go one way and the other set - Western, developed, would work within existing IG institutions. I tried to explain why the internet requires new, non-national governance institutions. I argued that the Internet "public" that requires "public policy" is more than a collection of 100+ national publics. I said I agreed with Brazil that we needed change but called openly for strengthening IGF rather than creating a new intergovernmental arrangement. My most pointed criticism - one that got the DESA people scurrying - was to ask why, if EC was a separate process from IGF, was the CSTD suddenly proposing to exclude CS and business from _developing recommendations for improvements in the IGF_!!! > > As noted before, Sha spent at least 10 minutes responding to me. He put a lot of emphasis on how EC and IGF were two distinct things. This sounds very convincing to the developing country governments, because it suggests that states can develop their own exclusive mechanisms for "cooperation." But it's really a hollow argument, because it ducks the question of why states need to do that in an exclusive way, and it signals that they are giving up on the IGF as an effective vehicle for change. Frankly, I think IBSA would be the doom of IGF - who would to go to it if a states-only process is going on in parallel and instead of solving the problems of the IGF's weaknesses we simply create another thing that excludes two of the three involved sectors? And if you are truly in favor of the status quo, then you should embrace IBSA because it will be easy to isolate the critical states there. > > Note also that the loopiest NGO intervention came from a woman who's organization was indeed ECOSOC accredited. > > --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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 00:56:59 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:56:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Avri, Exactly. My suggestion for Izumi and Bill: make the same point as Milton, ie only way forward is to recognize that enhanced cooperation comes through strengthening IGF and not undermining it. The Brazil/India/South Africa proposal is the opposite of an open process, and hence not likely to work as the governments may hope. In sum Izumi: I suggest you mak point that IGF IS nascent 'enhanced cooperation;' next step over next five year phase would be for IGF to - send messages in a bottle or gasp - make recommendations; with inclusion of all stakeholders. AND - that IGF can help elaborate a framework of principles....see Bill we don;t need no convention, we got one already. The Internet technical community folks which have been dragging their heels on strengthening IGF haven't been careful in what they wished for, since it is not at all far-fetched in present climate that governments do step in and muck things up. More than they have already. Basically, if you have the Obama admin and Republicans both trying to assert state power over expression on the net, AND China punishing nations who dare go to a Nobel awards ceremony, AND Brazil, India and South Africa agreeing - essentially, with the US and China - that the solution is more governmental approaches to Internet governance...who's left to stand up? good luck Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:35 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report On 16 Dec 2010, at 00:04, Milton L Mueller wrote: > And if you are truly in favor of the status quo, then you should embrace IBSA because it will be easy to isolate the critical states there. I also question, if the governments go off and do their own thing, why would any of the Internet governance organizations ever comply with their decisions. Have they forgotten that one of the important reasons for the multistakeholder model was to give them an entry into the discussions, and that without a multistakeholder model, they have very little means of affecting anything? Yes, they can make some national laws and maybe even a framework treaty, but technology can always evolve around the laws and regimes they might create. the only way to achieve anything is through a multistakeholder processes where everyone buys into the legitimacy of the process to at least some extent. Or to put it another way, how does one achieve enhanced cooperation locked in room by ones self. 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 iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 01:36:32 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:36:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday Message-ID: Dear list, Here, I prepared Draft "Talking points" for us to make as statement at the Friday meeting. I plan to extract the points from our consensus statement, first, but like to go further more, given the discussion at NY meeting on EC etc. So I invite you to make your comments, so that we have more integrated views expressed, if not a full consensus in 48 hours. best, izumi -------- a) Need for "enhanced" (not degraded) multistakeholder approach - Why multistakeholder so important? - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as CSTD IGF WG - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding non-governmental actors in the process b) c) Need for enhancing participation 1) Need for remote participation within IGF Consultation process - All IGF meetings and related consultation meetings have had some form of remote participation. It is important to continue this practice at CSTD consultation meetings on both IGF and EC. This allows many interested parties, including governments, but mostly civil society actors who have decent interests and reasons and willingness to participate but prohibited from doing so by cost of travel and amount of time to spend to have 5 minutes slots if lucky… - Remote participation costs little but works great – call for support from private sector – technology companies - IGC is willing to help coordinate – like we did at Vilnius IGF - 2) Expanding accreditation - There should be new process to give new accreditation to IGF consultation process if we are to “improve” it, not just to continue it - WSIS accreditation is 6 years old and limited - ECOSOC accreditation is difficult and time-consuming to obtain - Otherwise we will limit our own work to the “usual suspects” only and leaving vast new people who now have strong interest and who are strongly influenced by the outcome of Internet Governance, albeit IGF alone - Same goes true for Enhanced Cooperation and also largely to WSIS follow up which leads to the WSIS 2015 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 01:41:38 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:41:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] meanwhile in actual IG news..... Message-ID: http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 02:14:33 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:14:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Here are some thoughts, I have tried to make it concise as possible. If you were to read this and think that is still not concise than I would retain (1),(5) and (6) is for your kind information. (2), (3) and (4), I suppose are common sense. *1) **Multistakeholdership is important for countries who have Rule of Law challenges as it encourages collaboration in the absence of “normal governance processes” that would ordinarily be afforded to it under the Constitution;* *2) **Multistakeholdership is critical as it has a more flattened structure that is in parallel with the nature of Internet Governance Issues and Scope;* *3) **Multistakeholdership increases and strengthens international relations in a fresh, innovative way that matches the pace of the nature of Internet Governance;* *4) **Multistakeholdership provides a new wave of representation and helps governments at the end of the day bring about cohesion in their regulatory reforms and policy reforms;* *5) **Remote Participation is critical and changes the dynamics of governance and allows countries that have serious resource constraints to participate.* *6) **I am happy to talk to the Local ISPs in Fiji to consider assisting with the remote participation in Fiji.* *Kind Regards,* ** *Sala (Fiji)* ** On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Marilia, Katitza and Sala and all, > > I very much echo with what you said. Most Civil society members from both > developing and developed countries have high hurdle to participate in > the consultation process on EC or IGF type of "new", emerging, global > issues > in UN system. Of course, in general developed parts have less difficulties > than developing, economically and other factors combined, and we should > bring these on the table. > > So, while I will try to write some IGC statement of sort for Friday's IGF > consultation meeting, I also very much appreciate if you could write > your own and send it to the CSTD IGF consultation chair, and/or > send to me and I can try to read out on behalf of you guys, in addition > to, maybe, on behalf of IGC per se. > > I am not sure if that is accepted as the protocol, but since or if they do > not prepare remote participation, that itself should also be pointed out > and requested as we had great remote participation practice at this > year IGF, we should instead make the case by doing so. > > CSTD secretariat is > > Mongi Hamdi > Head of CSTD Secretariat > UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) > +41-(022)-917 2601 > E-mail: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org > > izumi > > 2010/12/16 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > > UNESCAP has a Pacific office based in Suva and is a part of ECOSOC. > There > > are other international organisations such as the UN and EU who have > > presence in the Pacific, in Fiji. > > > > We have Policy Advisers to various Pacific Island Governments through the > > SPC, SOPAC (which has been absorbed by SPC), PIFS etc. There is another > > organisation called the PITA. I wonder though if their views and those > from > > civil society in the Pacific were considered and if there was an > invitation > > extended to extract the views from Oceania. > > > > I agree with Mariela that often scarce resources makes developing > countries > > think twice about sending physical representation. ICT will > revolutionise, > > without a doubt, participation from Oceania. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sala T (Fiji) > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Marilia Maciel > > > wrote: > >> > >> Roland, > >> > >> When I think about the situation of interested people and organizations > >> from developing countries, I tend to disagree with you. These > organizations > >> were mostly not aware of the IG debate during WSIS, so they have no > >> accreditation in WSIS or ECOSOC. They have become increasingly aware on > the > >> last years (IGF taking place in different continents helped that), but > they > >> certainly did not have 5 years ask for ECOSOC accreditation. In addition > to > >> that, it takes human resources to map out and understand all the > >> ECOSOC-CSTD-DESA ecosystem. Many organizations from developing countries > are > >> beginging to grasp all that, now that CSTD and DESA are being > mainstreamed > >> in conversations. > >> > >> Open consultations are positive, but they tend to give advantage to > >> stakeholder based in developed countries (Europe, US) where most of the > >> international organizations are based. Scarce resources in developing > >> countries make us think twice before crossing an ocean to go to a > meeting. > >> It would be much easier to people from developing countries to attend if > >> there is a formal invitation, if we can sit on the table and influence > the > >> process. It is too expensive to travel on the promise that maybe your > >> organization will have the chance to make a statement, if time permits. > >> > >> Because of that and other reasons, I believe this decision from Dec 6 > was > >> arbitrary, anti-multistakeholder, anti-CS and anti-inclusion of people > from > >> developing countries. > >> > >> Marilia > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Roland Perry > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> In message > >>> , at > 03:17:21 > >>> on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes > >>>> > >>>> Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS with > >>>> consultative status only? > >>> > >>> I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to > decide > >>> if they want to apply for consultative status, currently (in some cases > for > >>> longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux IP européens [my > former > >>> client] and ISOC. > >>> > >>> Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow a > wider > >>> audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well as their main > >>> sessions. And I think there's been progress here - they are having > their > >>> third genuinely open consultation in a row later this week, even if the > >>> "drafting the communique" part has become a government-only group. And > the > >>> main sessions last May had several "non-member" panellists invited to > speak. > >>> > >>> There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - getting a > >>> proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also getting your > opinions > >>> listened to in the short term. I'm not convinced that the latter is a > huge > >>> obstacle as long as you approach it sensitively, and doing that > successfully > >>> a few times often makes the former much easier. > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> In message > >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa < > fouadbajwa at gmail.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> writes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather > what > >>>>>> his conclusion of that meeting was. > >>>>> > >>>>> There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended > >>>>> to > >>>>> 31st December about a month ago. > >>>>> > >>>>> A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are > expected > >>>>> to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for > >>>>> pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by > >>>>> the > >>>>> Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session > >>>>> through ECOSOC". That's end of 2011. > >>>>> > >>>>>> The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more > >>>>>> substantial > >>>>>> I guess. > >>>>> > >>>>> There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation, > >>>>> other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th > >>>>> Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this > >>>>> year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing > a > >>>>> report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous > >>>>> consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June > >>>>> usually). > >>>>> > >>>>> ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's > still > >>>>> current: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS > >>>>> and > >>>>> are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the > >>>>> follow > >>>>> up to WSIS" > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> < > http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=9128&lang=1&intItemI > >>>>> D=4839> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com<0%2BImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>>, > at 10:29:22 > >>>>>>> on Wed, > >>>>>>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' > him > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two > >>>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution"). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 21. Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of > >>>>>>> WSIS, > >>>>>>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening > >>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two > >>>>>>> distinct > >>>>>>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be > >>>>>>> complementary > >>>>>>> to one another, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 24. Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and > >>>>>>> inclusive > >>>>>>> consultations involving all member states and all other > stakeholders > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced > >>>>>>> cooperation... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Roland Perry > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > >> FGV Direito Rio > >> > >> Center for 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 02:17:14 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:17:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Contribution to CSTD inter-sessional panel and to outreach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Marilia, Thank you. This is a case in point about the beauty of multistakeholder participation where I am benefitting of your beautifully written work here in Fiji. Thank you, I will save this and read and muse and when I can, will interact, Warm Regards, Sala On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Dear all, > > The document attached is: > > a) a contribution to the development of CS arguments about the importance > of multistakeholder participation in the work of the CSTD regarding the > IGF. It is a result of my need to learn more about the WSIS process and the > role of CSTD. I read the main resolutions and reports published over the > last years and wrote a summary of key-points, at first to my use and studyonly. Then > I thought that this summary could be useful to others who did not > participate in WSIS. > > b) A contribution for enhancing our outreach. To mobilize other > organizations, it is important that we all make efforts to explain the main > points CS is dealing with now, that can be very complicated for people who > did not have the chance to follow the process from the start. > > If the coordinators believe it is useful, this doc could be upload (do we > have a wiki?) for corrections, comments, detailing, etc. This way we would > always have an updated text and would have access to important references, > resolutions numbers, etc more easily. > > Best, > > Marilia > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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 > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 02:21:04 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:21:04 +1200 Subject: [governance] meanwhile in actual IG news..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is interesting reading, thanks. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:41 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ > > -- > 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 -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 16 02:43:56 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:43:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 16/12/2010, at 1:56 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > In sum Izumi: I suggest you mak point that IGF IS nascent 'enhanced cooperation;' next step over next five year phase would be for IGF to - send messages in a bottle or gasp - make recommendations; with inclusion of all stakeholders. AND - that IGF can help elaborate a framework of principles....see Bill we don;t need no convention, we got one already. If I can stick my neck out for a minute and suggest a sound-bite for tomorrow's consultation, everyone knows that I have been in favour of a more empowered IGF since even before its first meeting. Until now this has been widely rejected because of the fear that being asked to make recommendations would destroy the productive and open discussions that take place there. But what I draw from Milton's report is that it may be a choice between a recommendation-making IGF, *or* a new purely intergovernmental forum which would quickly make the IGF redundant (excellent report by the way Milton; and excellent response Avri). In that context, which would we rather choose? If I were in Geneva, I would put it in those stark terms. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gorka.orueta at ehu.es Thu Dec 16 02:50:58 2010 From: gorka.orueta at ehu.es (Gorka Orueta) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:50:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] GIGANet Symposium In-Reply-To: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> References: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> Message-ID: <563EBDF6-4295-416D-9237-A44F3C908BC6@ehu.es> Hola Raquel, I sent you an email few days before asking for a paper or letter about my attending to the GIGAnet Symposium at Vilnius. This letter is very important for me because I paid in advance the trip to Vilnius and now I have to make the application to my university, the last day is december 27 and it's Christmas in between. The letter is very simple, something about Mr. Gorka Orueta Estivariz attend the.... no much more. When I was in Vilnius I asked you for this letter I understood you were the person in charge but if you are not, please tell me who is and will talk to him. Thank you Gorka Orueta ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 03:52:37 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:52:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Our Committees have facilitators now In-Reply-To: <4d08c2da418a6_48227a9566c318@weasel4.tmail> References: <4d08c2da418a6_48227a9566c318@weasel4.tmail> Message-ID: Hello, adding to what Raquel said, I want to encourage IGC members to provide some guidance for the strategy WG and share what they think as important topics to cover, Regards Rafik 2010/12/15 Raquel Gatto > Dear all, > It will be a pleasure to help as a facilitator for the workplan committee > and I hope we can take good results from the new structure. > I would like to remind that interested members should join one of the lists > (below) that Jeremy created a while ago, so we can start discussions as soon > as possible: > > > http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy > > http://igf-online.net/wws/info/workplan > > http://igf-online.net/wws/info/outreach > > Thanks again for the IGC co-coordinators to organize this all! > []s, Raquel > > ------------------------------ > Em 15/12/2010 06:09, *Baudouin SCHOMBE < b.schombe at gmail.com >* escreveu: > > Very good option that will allow us to work efficiently and make relevant > contributions. > > > Baudouin > > > 2010/12/14 Izumi AIZU > > > >> Dear list, >> >> As Jeremy indicated, we are happy to deliver a good news on our >> committees. >> >> In response to the idea of forming three sub-groups or committees, >> Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach, the following members of IGC agreed >> to take some leadership or facilitation role upon the co-coordinators >> request. >> They are: >> >> Rafik Dammak - Strategy >> Raquel Gatto - Work Plan >> Marilia Maciel - Outreach >> >> Thank you for taking these crucial roles, as voluntary work. >> >> For all, it is not THEIR job to advance, but rather it's our collective >> work >> that will make the implementation. The three facilitators will not, >> hopefully >> work in their own silos, but will collaborate, as appropriate, together >> with >> myself and Jeremy, to have more efficient division of labor as there will >> be more works and tasks for us to come. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 04:06:34 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:06:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Taking off my coordinator hat, I think there is another option: Still trying to make EC consultation process also as multi-stakeholder, in view of, if any, EC WG or something created, it should be MSH we should stick to. That does not mean to consider empowering IGF including the possible option of making recommendations or reports, etc. something similar to, perhaps, WGIG kind of exercise. As Milton indicated, just saying the status quo is working fine and no change needed, in the context of "IGF improvement" and "enhanced" cooperation, is rather weak, IMHO. my 2 cents, izumi 2010/12/16 Jeremy Malcolm : > On 16/12/2010, at 1:56 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> In sum Izumi: I suggest you mak point that IGF IS nascent 'enhanced cooperation;' next step over next five year phase would be for IGF to - send messages in a bottle or gasp - make recommendations; with inclusion of all stakeholders. AND - that IGF can help elaborate a framework of principles....see Bill we don;t need no convention, we got one already. > > If I can stick my neck out for a minute and suggest a sound-bite for tomorrow's consultation, everyone knows that I have been in favour of a more empowered IGF since even before its first meeting.  Until now this has been widely rejected because of the fear that being asked to  make recommendations would destroy the productive and open discussions that take place there.  But what I draw from Milton's report is that it may be a choice between a recommendation-making IGF, *or* a new purely intergovernmental forum which would quickly make the IGF redundant (excellent report by the way Milton; and excellent response Avri).  In that context, which would we rather choose?  If I were in Geneva, I would put it in those stark terms. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 04:32:03 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:32:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Taking off my coordinator hat, I think there is another option: > > Still trying to make EC consultation process also as multi-stakeholder, > in view of, if any, EC WG or something created, it should be > MSH we should stick to. agreed. > > That does not mean to consider empowering IGF including the > possible option of making recommendations or reports, etc. > something similar to, perhaps, WGIG kind of exercise. agreed. I like Avri's points: 1. "if the governments go off and do their own thing, why would any of the Internet governance organizations ever comply with their decisions." 2. "how does one achieve enhanced cooperation locked in room by ones self." I think we ought to smack them upside their collective heads with these stark, plain spoken realities. They won't like it, but they need to hear it! -- 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 Thu Dec 16 04:52:56 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:52:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today In-Reply-To: References: <9EF3A24C-2397-4B4D-A672-59C51678C998@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 08:45:48 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, McTim writes >> The fact that that lady is sitting there, she is there as a Portugal >> representative, authorised to represent the views of her people > >I know plenty of folk from Portugal with more clue than her, I would >suggest that she is doing them a disservice by being unprepared. > >IIRC she told the room she was representing Haiti. Irrespective of who she was representing (she said it was "schoolchildren around the world" as well as Haiti) the views she expressed were not unusual. I meet people all the time who think that the "hands off" or even "wild west" regulation of content on the Internet is a significant threat to many users. I know this is an unfashionable view amongst the constituencies who typically attend Internet Governance meetings, but it is widely held. One of the few tips of this iceberg to surface is the "right to be forgotten" (eg. erasing unwise things said on social networks when young, but it also applies to women who are stalked by ex-partners), which I think we'll be hearing a lot more of. While some say it's technically impossible, and others that you should be brave and face up to the inevitable consequences of what's online, there's a non-zero probability of a "Titanic moment" at some point in the not too distant future. Isn't this one of the reasons the public (through their governments) want to find out who is "in charge of the Internet", and ask them to help make it a safer place? -- 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 Thu Dec 16 05:30:42 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:30:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Sha's closing remarks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 04:42:32 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >Interestingly the document seems to be developed before the >consultation and handed out as part of an ending process of the >meeting. That's because it's describing the process, and not the actual discussion or conclusions (which will be in a document published later). Think of it as press release rather than a communiqué. >On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message , at 17:20:53 on >> Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes >> >>> [ A MIME application / pdf part was included here. ] >> >> Thanks for posting that. >> >> It's the formal closing statement which he didn't read out, on the grounds >> that "everyone in the room has a copy". Which was unfortunate for the remote >> participants :( >> >> The last paragraph describes what "happens next" - same message as I had >> pieced together in an email to this list earlier today. The statement isn't >> intended to reflect anything said from the floor on the day. >> >> He also said some unscripted things, for which we don't have a transcript, >> but the link to the archived webcast (of the afternoon) has been widely >> circulated. -- 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 Thu Dec 16 06:14:34 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:14:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2qum+6CaSfCNFAbo@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 00:04:22 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Milton L Mueller writes >My most pointed criticism - one that got the DESA people scurrying - >was to ask why, if EC was a separate process from IGF, Just because CSTD is dealing with both workstreams, doesn't invalidate the proposition that they might be "two distinct processes" (which are proceeding in parallel). Indeed, that train left the station months ago when the resolution which called for yesterday's meeting defined the "two processes" context for the meeting. >was the CSTD suddenly proposing to exclude CS and business from >_developing recommendations for improvements in the IGF_!!! The reason why the CSTD IGF WG has been made Government only (although CS and business are still able to turn up tomorrow and read out their inputs to the process) has been stated as 'in order to complete the work on time'. You may think that's a smokescreen, and an undesirable outcome, but I suspect we have to live with it now, unless some rabbits appear out of hats in Geneva today or tomorrow. The original roadmap (for the IGF Improvements WG) was always a bit optimistic if (as it turned out) they needed to wait for the General Assembly (via the Second Committee) to affirm that the IGF was going ahead at all. And we are also stuck with milestones such as the CSTD meeting being in May, and the 2012 IGF planning starting in less than a year. As for the EC recommendations (which is defacto a quite separate report regardless of the EC/IGF separation issue) we need to wait for the UnderSec's report, then influence the debate where/when that surfaces (whether that's CSTD or ECOSOC, it'll be early next summer). >Note also that the loopiest NGO intervention came from a woman who's >organization was indeed ECOSOC accredited. But that's democracy for you - within whatever the local constraints are (ultimately very few for that meeting), you do have to listen politely to what everyone has to say. -- 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 Thu Dec 16 06:18:29 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:18:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 00:35:28 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes >how does one achieve enhanced cooperation locked in room by ones self. Whatever process happens between now and some possibility of Enhanced CoOperation being embodied in a new or existing institution, that embodiment very likely needs to be multistakeholder to succeed. -- 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 Thu Dec 16 06:31:23 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:31:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] New York - EC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <$7606fFLifCNFAb7@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 22:23:18 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel writes >Roland, > >When I think about the situation of interested people and organizations >from developing countries, I tend to disagree with you. These >organizations were mostly not aware of the IG debate during WSIS, so >they have no accreditation in WSIS or ECOSOC. You don't have to be WSIS accredited to "upgrade" to ECOSOC accreditation. Any qualifying organisation can apply. However, I agree with you that raising awareness of the need to participate is crucial. It's a shame that fewer, rather than more, organisations have been involved as the years pass by. We could see how few people turned up to the meeting in New York yesterday, and it was similarly very quiet in Geneva at the cluster of events at the end of November. >They have become >increasingly aware on the last years (IGF taking place in different >continents helped that), but they certainly did not have 5 years ask >for ECOSOC accreditation. In addition to that, it takes human resources >to map out and understand all the ECOSOC-CSTD-DESA ecosystem. Many >organizations from developing countries are beginging to grasp all >that, now that CSTD and DESA are being mainstreamed in conversations. I get the feeling that people thought the IGF was "the answer", and despite hints from Markus and others, they failed to fully engage with the CSTD process starting a couple of years ago - when it was apparent that this would be an important place to make their presence felt. >Open consultations are positive, but they tend to give advantage to >stakeholder based in developed countries (Europe, US) where most of the >international organizations are based. Scarce resources in developing >countries make us think twice before crossing an ocean to go to a >meeting. It would be much easier to people from developing countries to >attend if there is a formal invitation, if we can sit on the table and >influence the process. It is too expensive to travel on the promise t >hat maybe your organization will have the chance to make a statement, >if time permits. Knowing how and where you can influence the meetings is indeed important. But it's also necessary to invest in understanding the processes, to get the best result. >Because of that and other reasons, I believe this decision from Dec 6 >was arbitrary, anti-multistakeholder, anti-CS and anti-inclusion of >people from developing countries. The Dec 6th meeting was about the composition of the IGF Improvement Working group. Whether we agree or not that EC and IGF are the same, the fact is there are two very different workstreams here, and the NY meeting yesterday wasn't anything to do with IGF improvement. >Marilia > >On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Roland Perry < >roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message 4t6YhD_xvBi6wF8c36wiY79k_ajFrgoin3-b7 at mail.gmail.com>, at 03:17:21 > on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes > > >> Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS >> with >> consultative status only? > > > I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to > decide if they want to apply for consultative status, currently (in > some cases for longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux > IP européens [my former client] and ISOC. > > Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow a > wider audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well as > their main sessions. And I think there's been progress here - they > are having their third genuinely open consultation in a row later > this week, even if the "drafting the communique" part has become a > government-only group. And the main sessions last May had several > "non-member" panellists invited to speak. > > There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - > getting a proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also > getting your opinions listened to in the short term. I'm not > convinced that the latter is a huge obstacle as long as you approach > it sensitively, and doing that successfully a few times often makes > the former much easier. > > > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry >> wrote: > >>> In message >> p2CSi6B7FkCqYrKaOq_fpEhT8CyN44SBQp7gT at mail.gmail.com > >>>> , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa < >>>> fouadbajwa at gmail.com> > >>> writes > >>>> But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to >>>> gather what >>>> his conclusion of that meeting was. > > >>> There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was >>> extended to >>> 31st December about a month ago. > >>> A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are >>> expected >>> to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on >>> processes for >>> pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be >>> synthesised by the >>> Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th >>> session >>> through ECOSOC".  That's end of 2011. > > >>>> The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more >>>> substantial >>>> I guess. > > >>> There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced >>> Cooperation, >>> other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD >>> (14th >>> Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just >>> like this >>> year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over >>> pre-releasing a >>> report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's >>> famous >>> consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in >>> June >>> usually). > >>> ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I >>> think's still >>> current: > >>> "Information for civil society entities that were accredited >>> to WSIS and >>> are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding >>> the follow >>> up to WSIS" > >>> < >>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=9128&lang=1&intItemI >>> D=4839> > > >>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry >>>> wrote: > >>>>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>, >>>>> at 10:29:22 on Wed, >>>>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry < >>>>> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> writes > > >>>>>> The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, >>>>>> which 'invited' him to >>>>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation >>>>>> and IGF as two separate >>>>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new >>>>>> resolution"). > > >>>>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution: > >>>>> 21.     Recognizes that the Internet Governance related >>>>> outcomes of WSIS, >>>>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and >>>>> the convening of the >>>>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General >>>>> through two distinct >>>>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes >>>>> may be complementary >>>>> to one another, > >>>>> ... > >>>>> 24.     Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open >>>>> and inclusive >>>>> consultations involving all member states and all other >>>>> stakeholders to >>>>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of >>>>> enhanced >>>>> cooperation... > >>>>> -- >>>>> Roland Perry > > > -- > 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 -- 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 iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 06:34:15 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:34:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? Message-ID: There is some move behind the scenes here in Geneva, to include additional 5 members from non-governmental entities, I heard. +5 for both CS and private sector (not each), is rather limited, but still a positive, well, move is there. They will have some informal meeting over lunch, I was told. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 06:40:51 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:40:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Bottom line on MSH (for CSTD meeting tomorrow) Message-ID: Dear all, One simple and important argument should be constantly kept in mind in debating MSH (beyond arguing in favor if its benefits) : 180 governments in Geneva and Tunis solemnly have affirmed that Internet Governance should be multi-stakeholder. However you read the documents adopted in WSIS, that's what they say. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Reverting to a purely intergovernmental approach (as seems to be currently the trend) is nothing else than a betrayal - in letter and spirit - of the commitments made at the highest level. Debating the "respective roles and responsibilities" of the different stakeholders cannot amount to saying that some are kept in the room (behind closed doors) and the other ones are kicked out - again. Bottom line, in light of WSIS principles, any purely intergovernmental process should be considered illegitimate and its outcomes void of consent by the "governed". Best Bertrand On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Marilia and all, without knowing this, I was writing to ask you all > to contribute this kind of messages, so this is very much welcome! > > > What I started to write is as follows: > > Need for enhanced multistakeholder approach > > - Why multistakeholder so important? > - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet > governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as > CSTD IGF WG and EC consultation proces > - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding > non-governmental actors in the process > > So, instead of just repeating the importance of MSH, I think we should also > prepare in concise language to explain why MSH is so important and benefits > us all. > > Jeremy, in addition to wiki, which is great of course, could we prepare > some > portion of our current website that allow putting these materials as > "reference" > so that we can share our knowledge - ongoing. > > Well, I should do that, but not yet familiar with dealing with the CMS, > if you could do that that will be great. > > izumi > > > 2010/12/16 Jeremy Malcolm : > > On 16/12/2010, at 11:59 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > If the coordinators believe it is useful, this doc could be upload (do we > > have a wiki?) for corrections, comments, detailing, etc. This way we > would > > always have an updated text and would have access to important > references, > > resolutions numbers, etc more easily. > > > > Thanks Marilia, this is really useful. We will have a wiki, and this > will > > be part of it. I'll be working on significant improvements to the IGC > Web > > site over Christmas (ho ho ho). > > -- > > > > 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. > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 16 07:04:19 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:04:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 20:34:15 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >There is some move behind the scenes here in Geneva, to include >additional 5 members from non-governmental entities, I heard. > >+5 for both CS and private sector (not each), is rather limited, >but still a positive, well, move is there. > >They will have some informal meeting over lunch, I was told. Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? -- 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 Dec 16 07:12:42 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:12:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] meanwhile in actual IG news..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ No, this :-) Adam >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 07:28:43 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:28:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi, A few comments inline below. Hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > Here, I prepared Draft "Talking points" for us to make as statement at > the Friday meeting. > > I plan to extract the points from our consensus statement, first, but like > to go further more, given the discussion at NY meeting on EC etc. > > So I invite you to make your comments, so that we have more integrated > views expressed, if not a full consensus in 48 hours. > > best, > > izumi > > -------- > > Suggestion to preface the statement with preliminary remarks on this specific consultation process, building upon the letter/petition : - the process currently followed is not in conformity with the letter and spirit of the ECOSOC resolution calling for the creation of the Working Group; - this group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice, made in reference to the creation of the WGIG to provide as much flexibility as possible in terms of format; - the meeting of the representatives of CSTD members on December 6 not only was an inappropriate format for deciding the composition of the group, but the decision was taken in spite of the strong objection of at least two countries, therefore not consensus-based (unlike the ECOSOC resolution) - consultations in Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed like the WGIG, and in any case multi-stakeholder - the consultations on the 17 should be about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it multi-stakeholder, - the IGC considers that any decision on the group format that is not even based on consensus among the CSTD member states reduces the legitimacy of whatever group is composed > a) Need for "enhanced" (not degraded) multistakeholder approach > > - Why multistakeholder so important? > Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the approach regarding Internet Governance. Period. Reverting to a purely intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in May. > - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet > governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as > CSTD IGF WG > Suggestion to suppress this part. This is not about why MS is good; but rather why it MUST be the approach because that's what the WSIS principles and the ECOSOC resolution say. > - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding > non-governmental actors in the process > Any outcome of a purely intergovernmental group will therefore lack legitimacy and should be considered nil. > b) c) Need for enhancing participation > 1) Need for remote participation within IGF Consultation process > - All IGF meetings and related consultation meetings have had some > form of remote participation. It is important to continue this > practice at CSTD consultation meetings on both IGF and EC. This allows > many interested parties, including governments, but mostly civil > society actors who have decent interests and reasons and willingness > to participate but prohibited from doing so by cost of travel and > amount of time to spend to have 5 minutes slots if lucky… > - Remote participation costs little but works great – call for support > from private sector – technology companies > - IGC is willing to help coordinate – like we did at Vilnius IGF > - > 2) Expanding accreditation > Big note of warning here : the IGF and even the WSIS Forum of Action Lines, have established an open participation principle, without formal accreditation and it has worked without problems. Reestablishing any accreditation procedure can hardly be considered as an "improvement" in terms of inclusion, transparency and openness. This part should therefore be focused on refusing the reintroduction of accreditation rules, in view of a general principle of open participation and for the reasons described below : WSIS accreditation is outdated (Facebook and Twitter could not participate if they wanted to ??) and ECOSOC accreditation is irrelevant (participants interested in Internet Governance should not require general accreditation to all ECOSOC issues). > - There should be new process to give new accreditation to IGF > consultation process if we are to “improve” it, not just to continue > it > - WSIS accreditation is 6 years old and limited > - ECOSOC accreditation is difficult and time-consuming to obtain > > - Otherwise we will limit our own work to the “usual suspects” only > and leaving vast new people who now have strong interest and who are > strongly influenced by the outcome of Internet Governance, albeit IGF > alone > - Same goes true for Enhanced Cooperation and also largely to WSIS > follow up which leads to the WSIS 2015 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 07:35:21 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 07:35:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over WHO must be Transparent) In-Reply-To: References: <668658.61027.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <214758.95212.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: And the core of my post is the question of what vision of internet transparency triumphed in TIME's Person of the Year? It is the vision of personal transparency, and a rejection of transparency for the governments of the world. Someone asked, why can't the editors override tjeor readership poll? [read: why can't the editors be undemocratic in approach?] That misses the point of the post, which is to show which internet transparency vision was selected undemocratically (as they had purported to reserve the right to do just that) amd how those two visions of who ought to be the most transparent one, government or people, clash in the form of the Assange vs. Facebook contrast. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 12/15/10, McTim wrote: > This is actually nothing to do with Internet Governance...not even remotely. > > It's completely Off-Topic for this list AND the original posting > contained a Godwin, so let's let it rest, eh? We have actual > important topics to discuss. > > -- > 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, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Respectfully, that is your presumption. You cannot presume to know what my >> expectations are. That being said, I would proffer that each context is >> different and that is why I had raised the questions I had raised >> initially. >> >> :) >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, David Goldstein >> wrote: >>> >>> Oh this is just balmy... next you'll expect that a newspaper or other >>> publication to follow the views of readers expressed in vox pops or >>> opinion >>> polls they conduct before they write an editorial. >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein >>> >>> Cc: Paul Lehto ; Rui Correia >>> ; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >>> >>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:54:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over >>> WHO must be Transparent) >>> >>> At the heart of the matter, is the "bottom line", Who pays for the ads >>> and >>> sponsors its publications? Is it susceptible to being banned? Is it >>> afraid >>> of being "controversial" and I suppose that as a magazine, the editors >>> can >>> do what they want. >>> >>> Respectfully, David I beg to differ. I think the issue that Paul raised >>> is >>> at the heart of the Internet Governance Debate (political basket) even if >>> indirectly. Yes, the magazine can invoke its exclusionary clause and >>> exercise its discretion by virtue of the disclaimer that it incorporates >>> but >>> the resounding message that it sends to its readers is a resounding:- >>> >>> 1) thank you for purchasing Time Magazine, we enjoy bringing you news and >>> getting you to pay for it; >>> 2) we cannot afford to be seen as "siding" with anyone who is a threat to >>> US National Security and risk being sanctioned. >>> >>> This raises issues of "transparency" and if polling takes place via the >>> internet, then of course it is "discussion" worthy. Below is an article >>> from >>> the NYT:- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Breaking News Alert >>> The New York Times >>> Wed, December 15, 2010 -- 9:08 PM ET >>> ----- >>> U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks Founder >>> Federal prosecutors, seeking to build a case against the >>> WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange for his role in a huge >>> dissemination of classified government documents, are looking >>> for evidence of any collusion in his early contacts with an >>> Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the >>> information. >>> Justice Department officials are trying to find out whether >>> Mr. Assange encouraged or even helped the analyst, Pfc. >>> Bradley Manning, to extract classified military and State >>> Department files from a government computer system. If he did >>> so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in >>> the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents >>> who then published them. >>> Read More: >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?emc=na >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Goldstein >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh for god's sake, why can't Time choose someone as their person of the >>>> year >>>> different to their readers? >>>> >>>> Under what circumstances are the editors and those who chose the person >>>> of the >>>> year bound by any reader support? >>>> >>>> To think that Time as a magazine, who made it clear they reserved the >>>> right to >>>> disagree with their readers, should not be capable of making their own >>>> choice is >>>> frankly stupid. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>> From: Paul Lehto >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia >>>> Cc: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza >>>> Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 11:58:15 AM >>>> Subject: [governance] TIME Magazine's Person of the Year (Battle over >>>> WHO >>>> must >>>> be Transparent) >>>> >>>> For both internet and transparency purposes, Time Magazine's Person of >>>> the Year choice, in light of its own Readers' Poll results, is >>>> astounding. >>>> >>>> First, Time Magazine's Person of the Year starts with the Time >>>> Readers' Poll -- which is now closed -- and which shows Assange in >>>> first place, easily way ahead of everyone else for Time's 2010 Person >>>> of the Year: >>>> >>>> 1. Julian Assange 382,026 votes, and 92% avg >>>> rating (all voters) >>>> 2. Recep Tayyip Erdogan 233,639 (avg rating 80% >>>> 3. Lady Gaga 146,378 (avg rating 70%) >>>> 4. Jon Stewart and John Colber 78,145, (avg rating 81%) >>>> [snip] >>>> 6. Barack Obama 27,478 (avg rating 58%) >>>> 8. the Chilean Miners 29,124 (avg rating 47%). >>>> 9. The Unemployed American 19,605 (avg rating 66%) >>>> 10. Marc Zuckerberg 18,353 (avg rating 52%) >>>> [snip] >>>> See >>>> >>>> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2028734_2029036,00.html >>>> >>>> >>>> SO, after the Time Readers' Poll, WHO IS TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR? >>>> >>>> Well.... There was a "NOTE" attached to the Readers' Poll" to the >>>> direct effect that "TIME's editors who choose the actual Person of >>>> the Year reserve the right to disagree." >>>> >>>> And, boy, did Time editors ever disagree with the people that are >>>> their own readers and customers. >>>> >>>> With a publication date of today (December 15, 2010) they chose the >>>> 10th place finisher, Marc Zuckerbook of Facebook, who got less than >>>> one vote for every 20.8 votes Assange got from Time Readers' Poll, and >>>> got only about half the positive ranking of Assange (52% for >>>> Zuckerberg, 92% for Assange). >>>> http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2036683,00.html >>>> >>>> But, to me, the biggest contrast and biggest shock, bigger than >>>> choosing the 10th place finisher over the first place finisher in the >>>> Readers' Poll, is the stark contrast between #1 Assange and #10 >>>> Zuckerberg on WHOSE transparency should get facilitated: >>>> >>>> Assange is all about transparency/accountability for the powerful, >>>> while Facebook (while it has other functions) is about transparency >>>> (and necessarily accountability of various kinds) for the average >>>> people. Facebook for example, is being monitored by US government >>>> officials to gather information and intelligence on its own citizens >>>> in certain contexts. Things like Facebook make it enormously easier >>>> for the government to monitor aspects of the private lives of netizens >>>> who often innocently think they're sharing just with their "Facebook >>>> friends." >>>> >>>> TIME has had Hitler as man of the year decades ago, and routinely >>>> stresses that selection of a Person of the Year isn't a personal >>>> endorsement. >>>> >>>> But it is telling, isn't it, that if TIME thinks Zuckerberg's social >>>> media is the wave of the present and of the future, TIME nevertheless >>>> had to resort to grossly undemocratic means to amplify the cause of a >>>> Facebook founder and ignore the overwhelmingly more popular cause of >>>> accountability / transparency for the powerful governments and >>>> corporations in the USA and around the world represented by Assange. >>>> >>>> Simply put, the person that has the power to demand or force >>>> transparency on the other person or entity (like government) is the >>>> master, and the one who must yield their privacy pretty much whenever >>>> asked, and must be totally transparent when required is the servant or >>>> slave entity. >>>> >>>> Despite the "relevance" of Zuckerberg, I find Time's choice to ignore >>>> its own readers and undemocratically choose Zuckerberg to be chilling >>>> when the type of "transparency" fostered by Facebook is compared to >>>> the type of transparency offered and fostered by Julian Assange and >>>> Wikileaks. >>>> >>>> In the Assange/Zuckergerg contrast, the status of ascending masters >>>> and descending slaves is clear. Unless, of course, Assange continues >>>> to win and decisions like TIME's POY debacle are exposed to a form of >>>> transparency sometimes called robust criticism. >>>> >>>> Paul Lehto, J.D. >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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." >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Thu Dec 16 07:40:19 2010 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:40:19 -0200 Subject: [governance] GIGANet Symposium In-Reply-To: <563EBDF6-4295-416D-9237-A44F3C908BC6@ehu.es> References: <4d08ca2391647_15a57a9566c11e@weasel4.tmail> <563EBDF6-4295-416D-9237-A44F3C908BC6@ehu.es> Message-ID: <4d0a08b3ee295_1678de466701b4@weasel29.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Thu Dec 16 07:42:10 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:42:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reverse DNS changes (was: meanwhile in actual IG news.....) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4933DB2C-BABB-4DAF-8079-357E372391C8@arin.net> On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:41 AM, McTim wrote: > http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ These are predominantly implementation issues, but as there could IG implications, I'll elaborate the key points for this community's consideration: > The IPv4 Reverse DNS uses the special domain IN-ADDR.ARPA. For many years the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone has been served by twelve of the thirteen DNS root servers. The changes we are planning will see the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone move to new, dedicated nameservers, five operated by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and one operated by ICANN. The deployment of dedicated DNS infrastructure for IN-ADDR.ARPA provides additional protection for clients and for root servers from high IPv4 reverse DNS traffic loads, and is consistent with the direction identified by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in RFC 3172. - The DNS root servers have also been serving as the IN-ADDR.ARPA servers, and this is not good from a load or security perspective. - These concerns were documented in an IETF "Best Current Practice" RFC 3172 more than 10 years ago. - The RIRs, IAB, and ICANN jointly came to agreement that this should finally be addressed. - As the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone contains information about the Internet number space, the new set of servers for the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone is distributed among the Internet number registries (i.e. the RIR's, and the IANA which serves as a Internet number registry for portions of the address space) > ARIN has carried out the DNS zone maintenance function for IN-ADDR.ARPA since 1997. This function will transition to ICANN and will be managed concurrently with the central assignment of IPv4 address space to RIRs. - While ARIN's always had the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone it reflect the full number assignment hierarchy, ARIN should not have a unique role in determination of the "content" of IN-ADDR.ARPA zone. - The RIRs, IAB, and ICANN jointly came to agreement that this should finally be addressed along with the servers by having the ICANN perform the zone maintenance task under the existing understanding for technical tasks between the IAB and ICANN (RFC 2860). As these changes were made by joint determination of the affected technical & operational parties, no single entity may unilaterally alter the outcome. These changes are based on public consensus documents stating the principles of good operational policy, extensive discussion for more than a decade, and actual collaboration (enhanced or otherwise ;-) between the parties. It is my personal opinion that this compares quite favorably to the decisional processes for other Internet infrastructure functions, but if anyone has suggestions for improvements, as always I would welcome such... Your humble infrastructure servant, /John John Curran President and CEO 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 08:11:06 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:11:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agree generally with Betrand's amendments and comments. Rgds , Tracy On Dec 16, 2010 8:29 AM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" wrote: Thanks Izumi, A few comments inline below. Hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear list, > Here, I prepared D... Suggestion to preface the statement with preliminary remarks on this specific consultation process, building upon the letter/petition : - the process currently followed is not in conformity with the letter and spirit of the ECOSOC resolution calling for the creation of the Working Group; - this group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice, made in reference to the creation of the WGIG to provide as much flexibility as possible in terms of format; - the meeting of the representatives of CSTD members on December 6 not only was an inappropriate format for deciding the composition of the group, but the decision was taken in spite of the strong objection of at least two countries, therefore not consensus-based (unlike the ECOSOC resolution) - consultations in Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed like the WGIG, and in any case multi-stakeholder - the consultations on the 17 should be about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it multi-stakeholder, - the IGC considers that any decision on the group format that is not even based on consensus among the CSTD member states reduces the legitimacy of whatever group is composed > > a) Need for "enhanced" (not degraded) multistakeholder approach > > - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet > governance itself and discuss... Suggestion to suppress this part. This is not about why MS is good; but rather why it MUST be the approach because that's what the WSIS principles and the ECOSOC resolution say. > > - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding > non-governmental actors in the proce... Any outcome of a purely intergovernmental group will therefore lack legitimacy and should be considered nil. > > b) c) Need for enhancing participation > 1) Need for remote participation within IGF Consultat... Big note of warning here : the IGF and even the WSIS Forum of Action Lines, have established an open participation principle, without formal accreditation and it has worked without problems. Reestablishing any accreditation procedure can hardly be considered as an "improvement" in terms of inclusion, transparency and openness. This part should therefore be focused on refusing the reintroduction of accreditation rules, in view of a general principle of open participation and for the reasons described below : WSIS accreditation is outdated (Facebook and Twitter could not participate if they wanted to ??) and ECOSOC accreditation is irrelevant (participants interested in Internet Governance should not require general accreditation to all ECOSOC issues). > > - There should be new process to give new accreditation to IGF > consultation process if we a... -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 16 08:17:39 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:17:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] meanwhile in actual IG news..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42796495-287B-424C-85F2-1657C94121F3@arin.net> On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ > > No, this Hey! There's also this important Nominating Committee (disclosure: which I serve on this year) If you are aware of anyone who would be good on the Internet Society Board of Trustees, please let us know (we only have till January 14th for nominations!) Thanks! /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 anriette at apc.org Thu Dec 16 08:35:33 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:35:33 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> These formulas sound like football formations. Would be good if we have Mourinho, or Guardiolo as our strategy advisor. I also think this is a move in the right direction. Anriette > Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed > on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? > -- > 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 avri at acm.org Thu Dec 16 08:39:48 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:39:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 16 Dec 2010, at 04:06, Izumi AIZU wrote: > As Milton indicated, just saying the status quo is working fine > and no change needed, in the context of "IGF improvement" > and "enhanced" cooperation, is rather weak, IMHO. I don't hear anyone saying the IGF does not need improvement. I think that is a straw dog - an argument made to be knocked down. Not only is the IGF young and on a course of constant growth, i.e. improvement one hopes, there is not such thing as an organization that does not need improvement. The question is in what direction people are trying to improve it. If you think it is is broken because it does not make decisions, then you can call that improvement. Whether the IGF can or should make decisions is still a tough call in my opinion. It some sense, it obviously should make decisions in some of the areas where there is a void. But until governments learn that making decisions means them, there needs to be care taken, hence the recommendations for words like 'outcomes' and other non decisions words. 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu Dec 16 08:49:56 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:49:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Bottom line on MSH (for CSTD meeting tomorrow) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, I agree with Bertrand's analysis and his remedy below. Governments may say that they are in favor of a multistakeholder model, but when faced with the inevitable loss of power and control that such a model implies, They become uncomfortable and resist the change that such a shift implies. That both the IGF and ICANN have demonstrated some success using the model is both reassuring and threatening: reassuring because it shows that the model, with responsible participants can improve discussion in certain significant areas, and threatening because such success might strengthen a call for its extension into areas where government interests are more strategic to them. If this were the position of one or a few governments, one could write it off, saying that there will always be governments that seek to maintain total control over their sphere of responsibility. However, when it is the United Nations that is reverting to total government control over the future of the IGF, then it becomes a matter of very serious concern. The UN is the implementer of the Tunis accord, not its redrafter. What the accord says is what it says, no more and no less, and multistakeholderism for Internet Governance is clearly the model that has been chosen. Any retreat from that position is, as Bernard properly puts it, a betrayal at the highest level. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 12:40 PM +0100 12/16/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Dear all, > >One simple and important argument should be constantly kept in mind >in debating MSH (beyond arguing in favor if its benefits) : 180 >governments in Geneva and Tunis solemnly have affirmed that Internet >Governance should be multi-stakeholder. However you read the >documents adopted in WSIS, that's what they say. Pretending >otherwise is disingenuous. > >Reverting to a purely intergovernmental approach (as seems to be >currently the trend) is nothing else than a betrayal - in letter and >spirit - of the commitments made at the highest level. > >Debating the "respective roles and responsibilities" of the >different stakeholders cannot amount to saying that some are kept in >the room (behind closed doors) and the other ones are kicked out - >again. > >Bottom line, in light of WSIS principles, any purely >intergovernmental process should be considered illegitimate and its >outcomes void of consent by the "governed". > >Best > >Bertrand > > <> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 16 08:53:08 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:53:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 15:36:32 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >civil society actors who have decent interests and reasons and >willingness to participate but prohibited from doing so by cost of >travel and amount of time to spend to have 5 minutes slots if lucky… I wouldn't use that as an excuse because it makes it sound like you are there just to speak "at" the room, and not to listen or negotiate or help form the outcomes. In any event, the most useful work is often done in the corridors and over lunch, and speaking nicely in private to the chair and secretariat. (That's for all these kinds of meetings, the CSTD is not special). >- WSIS accreditation is 6 years old and limited >- ECOSOC accreditation is difficult and time-consuming to obtain > >- Otherwise we will limit our own work to the “usual suspects” only I'm not denying that a more open framework might suit some purposes better, but there are three thousand ECOSOC accredited organisations - is it really not possible to engage the enthusiasm of a few of those and widen the range of participation (of individuals) that way? >WSIS follow up which leads to the WSIS 2015 Are you assuming there will be a big WSIS 2015 event? (This is really a topic for a new discussion), -- 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Dec 16 08:55:40 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:55:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Well, yes, the direction is not bad, but UNLESS we work hard, this will not be achieved. We need more voices expressed inside and outside the CSTD meeting tomorrow, clearly heard. There are still strong push-back from those who formally proposed and won the argument to make the WG only by government reps. It's not so easy to reverse at this point. So I urge any organizations and individuals to echo with IGC statement, or go beyond, to request CSTD to put non-governmental members into the IGF WG, to the Chair/secretariat. Send it here TODAY!! Mongi Hamdi Head of the CSTD Secretariat, UNCTAD izumi 2010/12/16 Anriette Esterhuysen : > These formulas sound like football formations. Would be good if we have > Mourinho, or Guardiolo as our strategy advisor. > > I also think this is a move in the right direction. > > Anriette > >> Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed >> on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? >> -- >> 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 > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Dec 16 08:58:42 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:58:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] meanwhile in actual IG news..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> On 16 Dec 2010, at 07:12, Adam Peake wrote: >> http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ > > > No, this > > :-) > > Adam > Think carefully before you get involved in the the ICANN nomcom process. Make sure you understand the incredible degree of privacy you will have to give up to ICANN and its hired investigators before going through a very long and arduous process that is likely to leave you, and those you ask for references, feeling very burned. It is not that I recommend against getting involved, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved in the working groups and other efforts that are open to all. I just recommend caution when getting involved with its Nomcom - get a full picture first of what they will ask of you, especially if you are chosen. And make sure you are comfortable with the role of the ICANN staff, the access they (especially their legal department) may or may not have with the information their investigators find and the degree of guarantee you are given on the protection of your privacy. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 16 09:01:27 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:01:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 08:39:48 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes >Whether the IGF can or should make decisions is still a tough call in >my opinion. It's the cornerstone of the IGF's very existence. As Nitin has hammered home many times. If there's an outcome then people always have to be looking towards making that outcome acceptable to their stakeholder group. Just look at how long ICANN has been debating the 'outcome' that is "more gTLDs" for an example of how that changes the nature of the discussion. (That's not a criticism of ICANN, the ITU takes just as long). And it becomes a very different space, where the 'public' sessions tend towards a formality and the real work happens in "smoke-filled rooms" late at night the day before the event closes. That's just human nature. All of which is quite separate from a discussion of what it might be, that they are making decisions about. And how you decide who gets a vote (or even a seat) in that smoke-filled room. -- 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Dec 16 09:09:09 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:09:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Just for clarification perhaps. What I wrote is below: "making recommendations or reports, etc. something similar to, perhaps, WGIG kind of exercise." I didn't say making "decisions". I mean decisions directly related to or on international public policy issues. WGIG came up with "reports" which included different options for the most contentious issue, not one recommendation. And I quite agree with Avri in >> Whether the IGF can or should make decisions is still a tough call in >> my opinion. I don't think we can reach there nor try to get there if decisions mean policy matters. izumi 2010/12/16 Roland Perry : > In message , at 08:39:48 on > Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > >> Whether the IGF can or should make decisions is still a tough call in >> my opinion. > > It's the cornerstone of the IGF's very existence. As Nitin has hammered home > many times. > > If there's an outcome then people always have to be looking towards making > that outcome acceptable to their stakeholder group. Just look at how long > ICANN has been debating the 'outcome' that is "more gTLDs" for an example of > how that changes the nature of the discussion. (That's not a criticism of > ICANN, the ITU takes just as long). > > And it becomes a very different space, where the 'public' sessions tend > towards a formality and the real work happens in "smoke-filled rooms" late > at night the day before the event closes. That's just human nature. > > All of which is quite separate from a discussion of what it might be, that > they are making decisions about. And how you decide who gets a vote (or even > a seat) in that smoke-filled room. > -- > 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 iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 09:18:05 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:18:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Bertrand for your logical observations. Being a coordinator, I would like to hear more voices, but in the interest of time and also debate, I will put some of my thoughts here. 2010/12/16 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> > Suggestion to preface the statement with preliminary remarks on this > specific consultation process, building upon the letter/petition : > - the process currently followed is not in conformity with the letter and > spirit of the ECOSOC resolution calling for the creation of the Working > Group; Sure. No problem. > - this group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair > of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice, made in reference to the creation > of the WGIG to provide as much flexibility as possible in terms of format; > - the meeting of the representatives of CSTD members on December 6 not only > was an inappropriate format for deciding the composition of the group, but > the decision was taken in spite of the strong objection of at least two > countries, therefore not consensus-based (unlike the ECOSOC resolution) > - consultations in Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed > like the WGIG, and in any case multi-stakeholder > - the consultations on the 17 should be about reconsidering the composition > of the group to make it multi-stakeholder, > - the IGC considers that any decision on the group format that is not even > based on consensus among the CSTD member states reduces the legitimacy of > whatever group is composed Yes. We already made that clear in our joint statement in essence. > >> >> a) Need for "enhanced"  (not degraded) multistakeholder approach >> > hopefully> >> - Why multistakeholder so important? > > > Suggestion to suppress this part. This is not about why MS is good; but > rather why it MUST be the approach because that's what the WSIS principles > and the ECOSOC resolution say. The reason I thought it to be added is that many of CSTD community people, let's say, do not seem to really know about IGF and why WSIS came to MSH. Most mission people in Geneva, for example, don't think MSH as given. That is why, in addition to bringing the WSIS principles all UN member states agreed, I tried to put the benefits of MSH to make our claim stronger. >> - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding >> non-governmental actors in the process > > Any outcome of a purely intergovernmental group will therefore lack > legitimacy and should be considered nil. Agree. Besides, not only it will lack legitimacy, but it will also lack the effectiveness and will lead to fail to address or solve the real issues. >> 2) Expanding accreditation > > Big note of warning here : the IGF and even the WSIS Forum of Action Lines, > have established an open participation principle, without formal > accreditation and it has worked without problems. Reestablishing any > accreditation procedure can hardly be considered as an "improvement" in > terms of inclusion, transparency and openness. > This part should therefore be focused on refusing the reintroduction of > accreditation rules, in view of a general principle of open participation > and for the reasons described below : WSIS accreditation is outdated > (Facebook and Twitter could not participate if they wanted to ??) and ECOSOC > accreditation is irrelevant (participants interested in Internet Governance > should not require general accreditation to all ECOSOC issues). OK, I agree, we need to be very careful in addressing these accreditation/participation issues on CSTD and EC consultation processes. But I think we all agree that current practice at CSTD and UN DESA are not open enough for Internet Governance discussion/consultation. best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 09:19:20 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:19:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Regarding adding 5 CS and business representatives, it is of course better than nothing but the WGIG was basically 50/50 composition. In the current proposal, we would have here 20 + 5, which is a considerable regression. 20 + 20 should remain the goal, with 20 + 15 a minimum, which could be presented as 15 govts + 15 other + 5 hosts. Kenya should also be added, as the next IGF host (as the resolution was agreed in NY on continuation). This would mean : 15 + 15 + 5 + 1 (ie 36, with 21 to 15 between governments and others). B. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Well, yes, the direction is not bad, but UNLESS we work hard, > this will not be achieved. We need more voices expressed > inside and outside the CSTD meeting tomorrow, clearly heard. > > There are still strong push-back from those who formally > proposed and won the argument to make the WG only > by government reps. It's not so easy to reverse at this point. > > So I urge any organizations and individuals to echo with IGC > statement, or go beyond, to request CSTD to put non-governmental > members into the IGF WG, to the Chair/secretariat. > > Send it here TODAY!! > > Mongi Hamdi > Head of the CSTD Secretariat, UNCTAD > > > izumi > > > > > 2010/12/16 Anriette Esterhuysen : > > These formulas sound like football formations. Would be good if we have > > Mourinho, or Guardiolo as our strategy advisor. > > > > I also think this is a move in the right direction. > > > > Anriette > > > >> Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed > >> on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 16 09:19:03 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:19:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 22:55:40 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes The reason I mentioned the 3+3+3, now maybe 2+2+1, is because it's probably quite difficult to argue that two Civil Society people, extra at the table, will be a threat to the smooth working; you could even say that the extra legitimacy it provides the process would be invaluable to the CSTD. Meanwhile, as I said on Monday, it might be useful to have names (who have travel budgets) up your sleeve, to show that such a late relaxation of the rules would actually work. >Well, yes, the direction is not bad, but UNLESS we work hard, >this will not be achieved. We need more voices expressed >inside and outside the CSTD meeting tomorrow, clearly heard. > >izumi > >2010/12/16 Anriette Esterhuysen : >> These formulas sound like football formations. Would be good if we have >> Mourinho, or Guardiolo as our strategy advisor. >> >> I also think this is a move in the right direction. >> >> Anriette >> >>> Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed >>> on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? >>> -- >>> Roland Perry -- 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Dec 16 09:23:37 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:23:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: I agree with Bertrand, that +5 is still far from acceptable. If governments have 20 and CS and PS have each 2 and tech community has 1, that is very much imbalanced. You cannot play football if a team has 11 and another team has only 6 players. Well, we are not playing the football per se... izumi 2010/12/16 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Regarding adding 5 CS and business representatives, it is of course better > than nothing but the WGIG was basically 50/50 composition. In the current > proposal, we would have here 20 + 5, which is a considerable regression. 20 > + 20 should remain the goal, with 20 + 15 a minimum, which could be > presented as 15 govts + 15 other + 5 hosts. > Kenya should also be added, as the next IGF host (as the resolution was > agreed in NY on continuation). This would mean : 15 + 15 + 5 + 1 (ie 36, > with 21 to 15 between governments and others). > B. > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Well, yes, the direction is not bad, but UNLESS we work hard, >> this will not be achieved. We need more voices expressed >> inside and outside the CSTD meeting tomorrow, clearly heard. >> >> There are still strong push-back from those who formally >> proposed and won the argument to make the WG only >> by government reps. It's not so easy to reverse at this point. >> >> So I urge any organizations and individuals to echo with IGC >> statement, or go beyond, to request CSTD to put non-governmental >> members into the IGF WG, to the Chair/secretariat. >> >> Send it here TODAY!! >> >> Mongi Hamdi >> Head of the CSTD Secretariat, UNCTAD >> >> >> izumi >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 09:27:45 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:27:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 23:09:09 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >I quite agree with Avri in >>> Whether the IGF can or should make decisions is still a tough call in >>> my opinion. > >I don't think we can reach there nor try to get there if decisions mean >policy matters. For some reason I'm reminded of the debate surrounding the definition of "GAC Advice". Is everything they say (even - 'we had a meeting in Cartagena last week') advice? Probably not. But it's not that difficult to sort out one from the other. So I don't think we are talking about the sort of IGF "decision" represented by "we'll have the next meeting in Kenya, maybe September". Something more policy-orientated, surely? -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 09:31:38 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:31:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: I agree with Bertrand´s suggestion on the team formation. We should strongly go for it and see what we get. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding adding 5 CS and business representatives, it is of course better > than nothing but the WGIG was basically 50/50 composition. In the current > proposal, we would have here 20 + 5, which is a considerable regression. 20 > + 20 should remain the goal, with 20 + 15 a minimum, which could be > presented as 15 govts + 15 other + 5 hosts. > > Kenya should also be added, as the next IGF host (as the resolution was > agreed in NY on continuation). This would mean : 15 + 15 + 5 + 1 (ie 36, > with 21 to 15 between governments and others). > > B. > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Well, yes, the direction is not bad, but UNLESS we work hard, >> this will not be achieved. We need more voices expressed >> inside and outside the CSTD meeting tomorrow, clearly heard. >> >> There are still strong push-back from those who formally >> proposed and won the argument to make the WG only >> by government reps. It's not so easy to reverse at this point. >> >> So I urge any organizations and individuals to echo with IGC >> statement, or go beyond, to request CSTD to put non-governmental >> members into the IGF WG, to the Chair/secretariat. >> >> Send it here TODAY!! >> >> Mongi Hamdi >> Head of the CSTD Secretariat, UNCTAD >> >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> 2010/12/16 Anriette Esterhuysen : >> > These formulas sound like football formations. Would be good if we have >> > Mourinho, or Guardiolo as our strategy advisor. >> > >> > I also think this is a move in the right direction. >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> >> Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed >> >> on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 16 09:34:37 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:34:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 23:23:37 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >I agree with Bertrand, that +5 is still far from acceptable. >If governments have 20 and CS and PS have each 2 and tech community >has 1, that is very much imbalanced. > >You cannot play football if a team has 11 and another team has only >6 players. Well, we are not playing the football per se... One of the options I listed on Monday was "walk away". Only those on the ground tomorrow can decide to do that (based on what they see and hear), rather than accept an x+y+z sticking plaster. But it's good to be having this discussion here, today, to seek the views of this stakeholder group. -- 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 Thu Dec 16 09:35:47 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:35:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 13:28:43 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Bertrand de La Chapelle writes >WSIS accreditation is outdated (Facebook and Twitter could not >participate if they wanted to ??) But they can join a trade/lobbying association which has a seat at the table, or there are other ways to join the 'club'. I was at more than one OECD meeting last year where YouTube were sat at the table, for example. [I wouldn't normally want to name specific players, but I make an exception to illustrate my point] -- 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 avri at acm.org Thu Dec 16 09:46:18 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:46:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> Hi, Another suggestion I heard bandied about in the hallways of Cartagena was for the rest of the stakeholders, with a few of the sympathetic governments to consider forming an alternate process. I do not know if this idea is real or being followed up on. Whether this process would be just a shadow process which commented on the official process, or one that eventually became the primary process, this may be worth considering should the non governmental stakeholders not be accorded full and proper status. a. (Note: in case it is not obvious from my starting to speak freely on these subjects, I am no longer under contract to the UN - though i do still have a database deliverable I owe - and I don't really expect to be under contract again given Markus' departure. I therefore again have the freedom of the unemployed to make statements in the open as opposed to only on the inside of the organization.) On 16 Dec 2010, at 09:34, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 23:23:37 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >> I agree with Bertrand, that +5 is still far from acceptable. >> If governments have 20 and CS and PS have each 2 and tech community >> has 1, that is very much imbalanced. >> >> You cannot play football if a team has 11 and another team has only >> 6 players. Well, we are not playing the football per se... > > One of the options I listed on Monday was "walk away". > > Only those on the ground tomorrow can decide to do that (based on what they see and hear), rather than accept an x+y+z sticking plaster. > > But it's good to be having this discussion here, today, to seek the views of this stakeholder group. > -- > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 10:05:25 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:05:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri, I have no doubt that such a parallel process would take place if the format of the working group is not satisfactory. Properly set up in an open and inclusive manner, it would clearly contribute to challenging the legitimacy of the "official" one. As a matter of fact, we should remember that the Tunis Agenda requested a consultation of "IGF participants" to address the issue of the continuation of the IGF. It would be ironic to have the "improvements" to the IGF decided in a less participatory manner than the fundamental question of whether the IGF should continue or not. B. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Another suggestion I heard bandied about in the hallways of Cartagena was > for the rest of the stakeholders, with a few of the sympathetic governments > to consider forming an alternate process. > > I do not know if this idea is real or being followed up on. Whether this > process would be just a shadow process which commented on the official > process, or one that eventually became the primary process, this may be > worth considering should the non governmental stakeholders not be accorded > full and proper status. > > a. > > (Note: in case it is not obvious from my starting to speak freely on these > subjects, I am no longer under contract to the UN - though i do still have a > database deliverable I owe - and I don't really expect to be under contract > again given Markus' departure. I therefore again have the freedom of the > unemployed to make statements in the open as opposed to only on the inside > of the organization.) > > > On 16 Dec 2010, at 09:34, Roland Perry wrote: > > > In message >, > at 23:23:37 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes > >> I agree with Bertrand, that +5 is still far from acceptable. > >> If governments have 20 and CS and PS have each 2 and tech community > >> has 1, that is very much imbalanced. > >> > >> You cannot play football if a team has 11 and another team has only > >> 6 players. Well, we are not playing the football per se... > > > > One of the options I listed on Monday was "walk away". > > > > Only those on the ground tomorrow can decide to do that (based on what > they see and hear), rather than accept an x+y+z sticking plaster. > > > > But it's good to be having this discussion here, today, to seek the views > of this stakeholder group. > > -- > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 10:17:33 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:17:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roland, On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > > WSIS accreditation is outdated (Facebook and Twitter could not participate >> if they wanted to ??) >> > > But they can join a trade/lobbying association which has a seat at the > table, or there are other ways to join the 'club'. I was at more than one > OECD meeting last year where YouTube were sat at the table, for example. > > I do see the point. Of course there is always the solution of using a sort of proxy : having some accredited participants in the WSIS serving as umbrella for any actor in their stakeholder group that is not formally accredited. Could be ISOC, APC or any other CS entity for CS actors; and ICC Basis or any other trade association for business actors. But this is at best a patch. Not to mention that it would make these organizations as gate-keepers, something they may not want. And how would people speak once inside the room ? Should they mention their real organization or the one that "accredited" them ? Remember the attempts by some well-intentioned governments (Switzerland for instance) during WSIS, when they included CS in their delegations and nobody knew who these participants were speaking on behalf of. The IGF (and ICANN by the way) has established a practice that works (in spite of all odds) : allowing any concerned actor to take part in the policy-shaping. It is this positive practice that should spread, instead of seeing the principle of accreditation crawling back into the IGF. B. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 16 10:20:33 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:20:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> References: ,<48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F83@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I'm no Mourinho or Guardiola, but my strategy advice is: someone other than me, send a (friendly) note to the CSTD chair, asking him if he is ready for his close-up as star of the 2011 edition of the 'UN taking over the Internet' show. Because if WGIG II carries on further than tomorrow, as a governments-only thing, it is brain-dead easy to make him...infamous. And not in a Julian Assange/highest vote-gatherer for Time Magazine's person of year way. In fact I suspect lurking journalists on our list may already be working on just the right spin to their story... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:35 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] WG - +5? These formulas sound like football formations. Would be good if we have Mourinho, or Guardiolo as our strategy advisor. I also think this is a move in the right direction. Anriette > Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed > on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? > -- > 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Dec 16 10:21:05 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:21:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> Message-ID: <147D3109-7790-4A9A-9ECD-9268B77BC3A2@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Another suggestion I heard bandied about in the hallways of Cartagena was for the rest of the stakeholders, with a few of the sympathetic governments to consider forming an alternate process. > > I do not know if this idea is real or being followed up on. Whether this process would be just a shadow process which commented on the official process, or one that eventually became the primary process, this may be worth considering should the non governmental stakeholders not be accorded full and proper status. I bandied, after the IGF session (in which I ranted). The suggestion was that if CSTD will not reconsider and make the wgig (that's half a WGIG) MS, we could organize a group to do our own report. After all, IGC and presumably ISOC and ICC prepared nomination processes that were waiting to be fired up, and presumably still could be. Whether any friendly governments would feel they could also join such an effort is unclear, but one assumes it'd be complicated even for those who question the legitimacy of the Dec. 6 decision. Either way, they could still coordinate with the group informally, and hopefully find some way to introduce the group's report into the process on some basis, non-paper or whatever. However that last step is handled, there would then be two probably rather different assessments getting press and attention in the period leading up to any "improvement" decisions. Of course, while it's not quite a nuclear option, it probably wouldn't be greeted with open arms by G77 or the UN. But if handled correctly, it could still be quite useful in various respects. That said, the antecedent question is what happens tomorrow...if the best we can get is +5, do we take it, or do we consider trying to organize a parallel track? 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 16 10:33:55 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:33:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F83@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F83@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F85@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Excuse me for my gender misstatement, I meant a note to her...but not just yet. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Roland Perry Subject: RE: [governance] WG - +5? I'm no Mourinho or Guardiola, but my strategy advice is: someone other than me, send a (friendly) note to the CSTD chair, asking him if he is ready for his close-up as star of the 2011 edition of the 'UN taking over the Internet' show. Because if WGIG II carries on further than tomorrow, as a governments-only thing, it is brain-dead easy to make him...infamous. And not in a Julian Assange/highest vote-gatherer for Time Magazine's person of year way. In fact I suspect lurking journalists on our list may already be working on just the right spin to their story... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:35 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] WG - +5? These formulas sound like football formations. Would be good if we have Mourinho, or Guardiolo as our strategy advisor. I also think this is a move in the right direction. Anriette > Going in the right direction then; not quite the 3+3+3 that I proposed > on Monday, but maybe 2+2+1? > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 16 10:52:35 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:52:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] The due diligence process for ICANN NomCom appointees In-Reply-To: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> References: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> Message-ID: All, I would respectfully disagree with Avri's reaction to the privacy implications of the degree of due diligence that ICANN applies to selected nominees for the positions to be filled by the Nominating Committee. I speak from my experience as Chair of the Nominating Committee in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and I doubt that the due diligence process has changed significantly since that time. Being on the Board of a Corporation comes with a serious fiduciary responsibility for its proper fiscal management. Corporations must perform adequate due diligence on prospective Directors. We have all seen news reports of people who claimed non-existent degrees, or worse, licenses to practice medicine. It's important to ensure that there is an adequate understanding of the backgrounds of people to whom Directorships are offered. A lesser degree of due diligence is appropriate for membership on the Councils of the Supporting organizations. I have executed due diligence processes for the NomCom for three years. With one exception that required full discussion, only I and the Corporation Secretary have been privy to the results. Further, I have gone through the due diligence process myself, and I found it neither objectionably invasive nor uncomfortable. Bottom line: if you are interested in ICANN leadership positions, I would encourage you to apply, and to consider the due diligence process an understandable and necessary part of the selection process. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:58 AM -0500 12/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >On 16 Dec 2010, at 07:12, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> >>>http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ >> >> >> No, this >> >> :-) >> >> Adam >> > > >Think carefully before you get involved in the the ICANN nomcom >process. Make sure you understand the incredible degree of privacy >you will have to give up to ICANN and its hired investigators before >going through a very long and arduous process that is likely to >leave you, and those you ask for references, feeling very burned. > >It is not that I recommend against getting involved, and I encourage >as many people as possible to get involved in the working groups and >other efforts that are open to all. I just recommend caution when >getting involved with its Nomcom - get a full picture first of what >they will ask of you, especially if you are chosen. And make sure >you are comfortable with the role of the ICANN staff, the access >they (especially their legal department) may or may not have with >the information their investigators find and the degree of guarantee >you are given on the protection of your privacy. > >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 avri at acm.org Thu Dec 16 11:05:23 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:05:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: The due diligence process for ICANN NomCom appointees In-Reply-To: References: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> Message-ID: <7E4D35DD-E90F-497F-81E3-E7C2F590A5A7@acm.org> Hi George, All well and good. I have only advised people to make sure they knew what they were getting into. I find it interesting to now know that the Corporate Secretary, also an ICANN legal staff employee, is informed of all of the private information obtained. In the past, I was told no one from ICANN staff saw any of it. Now we know it is at least nobody - 1 see it. What about the rest of his staff, also ICANN employees? Anyone else? The opacity of this process, consistent with ICANN's culture of secrecy, makes the entire chain of custody for the private information very suspect. Note, I agree with the need for due diligence when if comes to Board members who have fiduciary responsibility. I do not agree with the ICANN Staff being responsible for it or having access to this information. As for the arduous process, I was not referring to the due diligence per se. That is just a simple form where you sign away your privacy rights, and I have signed it several times. I am referring to the application process and the long forms required of one's references. And then the long wait in the dark while the process unwinds with the only news one gets being the rumors that always leak. I encourage people to know what they are getting involved in. I encourage people to consider the nomcom process, but I warn them to make sure they know what they are getting into first. But I mostly ask them to consider getting involved in the give and take of ICANN's working group process where the work is actually done. a. On 16 Dec 2010, at 10:52, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I would respectfully disagree with Avri's reaction to the privacy implications of the degree of due diligence that ICANN applies to selected nominees for the positions to be filled by the Nominating Committee. I speak from my experience as Chair of the Nominating Committee in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and I doubt that the due diligence process has changed significantly since that time. > > Being on the Board of a Corporation comes with a serious fiduciary responsibility for its proper fiscal management. Corporations must perform adequate due diligence on prospective Directors. We have all seen news reports of people who claimed non-existent degrees, or worse, licenses to practice medicine. It's important to ensure that there is an adequate understanding of the backgrounds of people to whom Directorships are offered. A lesser degree of due diligence is appropriate for membership on the Councils of the Supporting organizations. > > I have executed due diligence processes for the NomCom for three years. With one exception that required full discussion, only I and the Corporation Secretary have been privy to the results. Further, I have gone through the due diligence process myself, and I found it neither objectionably invasive nor uncomfortable. > > Bottom line: if you are interested in ICANN leadership positions, I would encourage you to apply, and to consider the due diligence process an understandable and necessary part of the selection process. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 8:58 AM -0500 12/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 16 Dec 2010, at 07:12, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>> http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ >>> >>> >>> No, this >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Adam >>> >> >> >> Think carefully before you get involved in the the ICANN nomcom process. Make sure you understand the incredible degree of privacy you will have to give up to ICANN and its hired investigators before going through a very long and arduous process that is likely to leave you, and those you ask for references, feeling very burned. >> >> It is not that I recommend against getting involved, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved in the working groups and other efforts that are open to all. I just recommend caution when getting involved with its Nomcom - get a full picture first of what they will ask of you, especially if you are chosen. And make sure you are comfortable with the role of the ICANN staff, the access they (especially their legal department) may or may not have with the information their investigators find and the degree of guarantee you are given on the protection of your privacy. >> >> 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 iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 12:31:21 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:31:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] governments first others later Message-ID: Another regression I was late to join the meeting this afternoon, and when I arrived there, it was over. Then I was told from the people inside the room, that it was announced that for tomorrows consultation meeting, governments only meeting will start at 10 am while all others have to wait until 11 am to enter the room. What a decision - very dangerous, indeed. For those who have time now, please send any message to CSTD direct. Unbelievable and unacceptable. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 16 12:45:04 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:45:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: The due diligence process for ICANN NomCom appointees In-Reply-To: <7E4D35DD-E90F-497F-81E3-E7C2F590A5A7@acm.org> References: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> <7E4D35DD-E90F-497F-81E3-E7C2F590A5A7@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri, Thanks for noting an omission. If my memory serves me correctly, the Corporation Secretary saw it only the time that there had to be full discussion of one of the results. Thanks for sharpening the issue an allowing me to clarify. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 11:05 AM -0500 12/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi George, > >All well and good. I have only advised people to make sure they >knew what they were getting into. > >I find it interesting to now know that the Corporate Secretary, also >an ICANN legal staff employee, is informed of all of the private >information obtained. In the past, I was told no one from ICANN >staff saw any of it. Now we know it is at least nobody - 1 see it. >What about the rest of his staff, also ICANN employees? Anyone >else? The opacity of this process, consistent with ICANN's culture >of secrecy, makes the entire chain of custody for the private >information very suspect. > >Note, I agree with the need for due diligence when if comes to Board >members who have fiduciary responsibility. I do not agree with the >ICANN Staff being responsible for it or having access to this >information. > >As for the arduous process, I was not referring to the due diligence >per se. That is just a simple form where you sign away your privacy >rights, and I have signed it several times. I am referring to the >application process and the long forms required of one's references. >And then the long wait in the dark while the process unwinds with >the only news one gets being the rumors that always leak. I >encourage people to know what they are getting involved in. > >I encourage people to consider the nomcom process, but I warn them >to make sure they know what they are getting into first. But I >mostly ask them to consider getting involved in the give and take of >ICANN's working group process where the work is actually done. > >a. > > > >On 16 Dec 2010, at 10:52, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> All, >> >> I would respectfully disagree with Avri's reaction to the privacy >>implications of the degree of due diligence that ICANN applies to >>selected nominees for the positions to be filled by the Nominating >>Committee. I speak from my experience as Chair of the Nominating >>Committee in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and I doubt that the due >>diligence process has changed significantly since that time. >> >> Being on the Board of a Corporation comes with a serious fiduciary >>responsibility for its proper fiscal management. Corporations must >>perform adequate due diligence on prospective Directors. We have >>all seen news reports of people who claimed non-existent degrees, >>or worse, licenses to practice medicine. It's important to ensure >>that there is an adequate understanding of the backgrounds of >>people to whom Directorships are offered. A lesser degree of due >>diligence is appropriate for membership on the Councils of the >>Supporting organizations. >> >> I have executed due diligence processes for the NomCom for three >>years. With one exception that required full discussion, only I >>and the Corporation Secretary have been privy to the results. >>Further, I have gone through the due diligence process myself, and >>I found it neither objectionably invasive nor uncomfortable. >> >> Bottom line: if you are interested in ICANN leadership positions, >>I would encourage you to apply, and to consider the due diligence >>process an understandable and necessary part of the selection >>process. >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> At 8:58 AM -0500 12/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >>> On 16 Dec 2010, at 07:12, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>>http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ >>>> >>>> >>>> No, this >>>> >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>> >>> >>> Think carefully before you get involved in the the ICANN nomcom >>>process. Make sure you understand the incredible degree of >>>privacy you will have to give up to ICANN and its hired >>>investigators before going through a very long and arduous process >>>that is likely to leave you, and those you ask for references, >>>feeling very burned. > >> >>> It is not that I recommend against getting involved, and I >>>encourage as many people as possible to get involved in the >>>working groups and other efforts that are open to all. I just >>>recommend caution when getting involved with its Nomcom - get a >>>full picture first of what they will ask of you, especially if you >>>are chosen. And make sure you are comfortable with the role of >>>the ICANN staff, the access they (especially their legal >>>department) may or may not have with the information their >>>investigators find and the degree of guarantee you are given on >>>the protection of your privacy. >>> >>> 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Dec 16 13:05:08 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:05:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] The due diligence process for ICANN NomCom appointees In-Reply-To: References: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D0A54D4.709@cavebear.com> On 12/16/2010 07:52 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Being on the Board of a Corporation comes with a serious fiduciary > responsibility for its proper fiscal management. ICANN is a California "public benefit" corporation; the fiduciary duties of directors of that kind of corporation are somewhat different than that of directors on a for profit corporation (and even on for-profit boards the scope of that duty is rather more broad than "fiscal management.) Now, one of the main areas in which "public benefit" corporations differ from for-profit ones, at least here in California, is that when a director is measuring what is good for the corporation that director must take into account what is good for the public - in other words, director must use a much wider horizon when doing his/her duties of making independent and informed judgment. The California law allows for public benefit corporations to have directors elected by the public without a corporate power to veto the choices. That suggests a rather lesser corporate power to flake and form the content and shape of its board of directors. As a matter of public policy it is in the interest of the public that the boards of public benefit corporations reflect a wide diversity of views and not be simply a closed incumbents-chose-successor system. This means that litmus tests, even lists of "qualifications" are suspect because they limit the ability of the public, for whose benefit the corporation is allowed existence, to participate in the management of that corporation. ICANN is oft perceived as a white tower in which pure philosopher kings (and queens) will rule the internet with wisdom and impartiality. From that aspiration comes much of ICANN's amazing process of filling its board seats, and much of the lore (and as a legal professional I am not willing to use any word stronger than "lore") that lurks within ICANN's directors meetings about the powers and limitations of directors. Yet as we see daily ICANN is a political cauldron - a place in which differences of views exist and in which strong clashes, even impolite clashes, exist. This churning is a healthy reflection of the diversity of the opinions held by the public, for whose benefit ICANN obtains a grant of existence from the State of California. ICANN's systems seem designed to quiesce, even to eliminate, the "sturm und drang" that comes from honest and informed debate over complex matters of significant social and economic weight. What all of this suggests, to me, is that ICANN is going the wrong way when it insists on purity of heart, mind, and deed as qualifications of those who are going to be on its board of directors. Perhaps one might draw a line at convicted felons, but the normal run-of-the mill person, with his/her lumps and scars, is often much better suited to the director's job of measuring the effect of an ICANN decision on the public interest than would be a pristine and virginal monk who has never experienced life. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 14:26:29 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:26:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] CTS/FGV contribution to CSTD WG on IGF sent today Message-ID: Dear all, I share with you the contribution send today to Mr. Mongi Hamdi, Head of the Secretariat of CSTD on behalf of CTS FGV regarding the discussions about the composition of CSTD WG on IGF improvement. I hope it contributes to strenghten the voices of civil society. Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CTS-FGV contribution on composition of CSTD WG for IGF improvement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 225171 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 15:43:47 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:43:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: governments first others later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From what I heard at the reception hosted by US Permanent Mission in Genea, the CSTD government folks need to resolve certain issues before opening the door to civil society and the private sector. But that itself indicates something. To me, CSTD is still very much operated in traditional UN fashion and they see IGF as outside the UN system and are not ready to adopt to some of the core innovations, let's say, of IGF. Certain government members, mostly mission people here in Geneva are afraid of bringing civil society on equal footing to governments, and that is like a flu or pandemic, widely shared by them according to some people close to CSTD. Whether we like it or not, big "cultural" change or attitudes not to accept the change is there. izumi 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU : > Another regression > > I was late to join the meeting this afternoon, and when I arrived > there, it was over. > Then I was told from the people inside the room, that it was announced that > for tomorrows consultation meeting, governments only meeting will start at 10 am > while all others have to wait until 11 am to enter the room. > > What a decision - very dangerous, indeed. For those who have time now, > please send any message to CSTD direct. Unbelievable and unacceptable. > > izumi > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 15:48:52 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:48:52 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: governments first others later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are there no other CS or IGC members present there with you Izumi? On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > From what I heard at the reception hosted by US Permanent Mission in > Genea, the CSTD government folks need to resolve certain issues > before opening the door to civil society and the private sector. But that > itself indicates something. > > To me, CSTD is still very much operated in traditional UN fashion and > they see IGF as outside the UN system and are not ready to adopt > to some of the core innovations, let's say, of IGF. > > Certain government members, mostly mission people here in Geneva > are afraid of bringing civil society on equal footing to governments, > and that is like a flu or pandemic, widely shared by them according > to some people close to CSTD. > > Whether we like it or not, big "cultural" change or attitudes not to > accept the change is there. > > izumi > > 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU : >> Another regression >> >> I was late to join the meeting this afternoon, and when I arrived >> there, it was over. >> Then I was told from the people inside the room, that it was announced that >> for tomorrows consultation meeting, governments only meeting will start at 10 am >> while all others have to wait until 11 am to enter the room. >> >> What a decision - very dangerous, indeed. For those who have time now, >> please send any message to CSTD direct. Unbelievable and unacceptable. >> >> izumi >> > > > > -- >                         >> Izumi Aizu << > >           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >                                   Japan >                                  * * * * * >            << Writing the Future of the History >> >                                 www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 iza at anr.org Thu Dec 16 15:53:07 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:53:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: governments first others later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anriette from APC just arrived, Bill Drake will come, and Parminder to arrive late tonight, at least I am aware of. But not enough. izumi 2010/12/17 Fouad Bajwa : > Are there no other CS or IGC members present there with you Izumi? > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> From what I heard at the reception hosted by US Permanent Mission in >> Genea, the CSTD government folks need to resolve certain issues >> before opening the door to civil society and the private sector. But that >> itself indicates something. >> >> To me, CSTD is still very much operated in traditional UN fashion and >> they see IGF as outside the UN system and are not ready to adopt >> to some of the core innovations, let's say, of IGF. >> >> Certain government members, mostly mission people here in Geneva >> are afraid of bringing civil society on equal footing to governments, >> and that is like a flu or pandemic, widely shared by them according >> to some people close to CSTD. >> >> Whether we like it or not, big "cultural" change or attitudes not to >> accept the change is there. >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 16 15:53:52 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:53:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: governments first others later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF58395-6A4E-40CA-AB91-2FF1FD9871AF@acm.org> As with the flu, i hope they get over it soon. Their apprehension appears ridiculous at this point. While CS is somewhat a beggar at the door, or at least we often act that way, the Internet Technical community, to my mind is exercising exemplary patience with their antics. a. On 16 Dec 2010, at 15:43, Izumi AIZU wrote: > From what I heard at the reception hosted by US Permanent Mission in > Genea, the CSTD government folks need to resolve certain issues > before opening the door to civil society and the private sector. But that > itself indicates something. > > To me, CSTD is still very much operated in traditional UN fashion and > they see IGF as outside the UN system and are not ready to adopt > to some of the core innovations, let's say, of IGF. > > Certain government members, mostly mission people here in Geneva > are afraid of bringing civil society on equal footing to governments, > and that is like a flu or pandemic, widely shared by them according > to some people close to CSTD. > > Whether we like it or not, big "cultural" change or attitudes not to > accept the change is there. > > izumi > > 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU : >> Another regression >> >> I was late to join the meeting this afternoon, and when I arrived >> there, it was over. >> Then I was told from the people inside the room, that it was announced that >> for tomorrows consultation meeting, governments only meeting will start at 10 am >> while all others have to wait until 11 am to enter the room. >> >> What a decision - very dangerous, indeed. For those who have time now, >> please send any message to CSTD direct. Unbelievable and unacceptable. >> >> izumi >> > > > > -- >>> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 Thu Dec 16 15:55:12 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:55:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 16:17:33 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Bertrand de La Chapelle writes >WSIS accreditation is outdated (Facebook and Twitter could not >participate if they wanted to ??) > >But they can join a trade/lobbying association which has a seat at the >table, or there are other ways to join the 'club'. I was at more than >one OECD meeting last year where YouTube were sat at the table, for >example. > >I do see the point. Of course there is always the solution of using a >sort of proxy : having some accredited participants in the WSIS serving >as umbrella for any actor in their stakeholder group that is not >formally accredited. Could be ISOC, APC or any other CS entity for CS >actors; and ICC Basis or any other trade association for business actors.  > >But this is at best a patch. Not to mention that it would make these >organizations as gate-keepers, something they may not want. And how >would people speak once inside the room ? Should they mention their >real organization or the one that "accredited" them ? You do need the right fit, and the right protocols for that. And yes it is a patch. I often see people, even on government delegations, who I know are not what's generally understood to be diplomats and are sometimes well known to be employed in other sectors in their day-job. >Remember the attempts by some well-intentioned governments (Switzerland >for instance) during WSIS, when they included CS in their delegations >and nobody knew who these participants were speaking on behalf of.  Unfortunately, I was not involved in WSIS at all. I have to find out what happened by reading the output and talking to those who were there. >The IGF (and ICANN by the way) has established a practice that works >(in spite of all odds) : allowing any concerned actor to take part in >the policy-shaping. It is this positive practice that should spread, >instead of seeing the principle of accreditation crawling back into the >IGF Agreed. Although in the meetings we are complaining about currently, it's more the governance of the IGF (and the governance of a potential Enhanced CoOperation process) that's not multi-stakeholder enough. And even ICANN and IGF have episodes behind locked doors (eg board meetings and MAG) although there's a trend for ever-increasing transparency and opportunity for open intervention. Did I hear speakers from the floor at one of last week's GAC sessions, for example? -- 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 Thu Dec 16 15:57:54 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:57:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG - +5? In-Reply-To: <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4 at acm.org>, at 09:46:18 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes >Note: in case it is not obvious from my starting to speak freely on >these subjects, I am no longer under contract to the UN - though i do >still have a database deliverable I owe - and I don't really expect to >be under contract again given Markus' departure. I therefore again >have the freedom of the unemployed to make statements in the open as >opposed to only on the inside of the organization. In which case we are birds of a feather, because both my clients from earlier this year are now ex-clients. -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Dec 16 17:16:42 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:16:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: governments first others later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0A8FCA.6030008@wzb.eu> Hi Izumi, you UN/IGF/multi-stakeholder hero, Am 16.12.2010 21:43, schrieb Izumi AIZU: > > > Certain government members, mostly mission people here in Geneva > are afraid of bringing civil society on equal footing to governments, > and that is like a flu or pandemic, widely shared by them according > to some people close to CSTD. I don't find this very surprising. It has been my experience throughout WSIS and the years since that the multi-stakeholder approach does not travel well within and across organizations. Sympathy for this approach still remains a matter of personal experience. The government people who have participated in multi stakeholder events begin to accept it, but not to a degree that would it sort of rub off on others not yet involved. In a way, multistakeholderism hasn't yet become a political culture that would be somewhat independent of personal experience. jeanette > Whether we like it or not, big "cultural" change or attitudes not to > accept the change is there. > > izumi > > 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU: >> Another regression >> >> I was late to join the meeting this afternoon, and when I arrived >> there, it was over. >> Then I was told from the people inside the room, that it was announced that >> for tomorrows consultation meeting, governments only meeting will start at 10 am >> while all others have to wait until 11 am to enter the room. >> >> What a decision - very dangerous, indeed. For those who have time now, >> please send any message to CSTD direct. Unbelievable and unacceptable. >> >> izumi >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 16 18:46:21 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:46:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Governance vs Government - as per Google Labs In-Reply-To: References: <48819.86.189.30.190.1292506533.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> <91F09700-73B4-4B17-8F12-9F7248C5E0C4@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D0AA4CD.8050802@communisphere.com> Warning, this is addictive. http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=governance%2Cgovernment&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 Tom Lowenhaupt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Dec 16 18:54:51 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 00:54:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] EC consultation in NY: my report In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC120090C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F81@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Izumi, It seems unlikely that the UN position on the IGF WG will change in the near future. Then CS will have to settle for an opportunist approach. Possible tactics: - Contact chair of the WG on IGF improvement. - Ask where and when the WG will meet. - Ask how MSH may provide "inputs". - Later, request F2F special MSH WG sessions for input clarifications. Writing to the SG may be an option, more iffy IMHO. - - - On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Taking off my coordinator hat, I think there is another option: > > Still trying to make EC consultation process also as multi-stakeholder, > in view of, if any, EC WG or something created, it should be > MSH we should stick to. > > That does not mean to consider empowering IGF including the > possible option of making recommendations or reports, etc. > something similar to, perhaps, WGIG kind of exercise. > > As Milton indicated, just saying the status quo is working fine > and no change needed, in the context of "IGF improvement" > and "enhanced" cooperation, is rather weak, IMHO. > > my 2 cents, > > izumi > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Dec 16 23:09:29 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:09:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Yahoo shutting down delicious! Message-ID: <95F8C66214084C3880632B8B1E368822@userPC> I haven't used Del.icio.us myself recently but I would guess a number of folks on this list have... http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/16/is-yahoo-shutting-down-del-icio-us/ So this will be very bad news for them. It also raises the obvious question that Internet based functionalities may be too important to be left to the whims and financial fortunes of private companies (think about say gmail or email over all and whether it should not be treated as a public service in the way that snail mail used to be treated. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 01:47:30 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:47:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] 2nd Draft IGC statements for today - CSTD WG consultation meeting Message-ID: Dear list, Thank you for all the comments made and I tried to take them as much as possible. So, here are actually 5 blocks, or, depending on how the meeting goes, 5 statements prepared. I may add or subtract some of these, to fit with the context of discussion. Still more comments and suggestions are all welcome. I have printed the Joint statement with ICC, ISOC et all, and also IGC solo Letter, and will distribute them in the room. many thanks, izumi ------- 2nd Draft IGC additional statement on IGF improvement Dec 17 2010 1. Why it should be MSH My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some government representatives started to realize that maybe it’s good idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names systems that government friends have very little clue of the very subject they are talking about. Or the field experts using the Internet for agricultural development in Africa. We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF. Why multistakeholder so important? The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders – and created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism. ECOSOC resolutions clearly support this multistakeholder principle. We have put the details of these into the joint statement with Business community and technical community and sent it to the Chair on Dec 9. The copies are distributed here today. So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC cannot and will not accept the current proposal. We have also made an additional statement for today’s meeting and also distributed there today. Now, more specifically - This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice, made in reference to the creation of the WGIG to provide as much flexibility as possible in terms of format; - The meeting of the representatives of CSTD members on December 6 not only was an inappropriate format for deciding the composition of the group, but the decision was taken in spite of the strong objection of at least two countries, therefore not consensus-based (unlike the ECOSOC resolution) -The consultations in Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair’s summary: “that the multi-stakelodr charchter and inclusive sprit and princples of the IGF should continue to guide the composition, modailiteis and working methods of the CSTD WG.” “Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) - Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost, about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it multi-stakeholder - The IGC considers that any decision on the group format that is not even based on consensus among the CSTD member states reduces the legitimacy of whatever group is composed. Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the approach regarding Internet Governance. Period. Reverting to a purely intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in May. ----------------- 2 Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it? It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a little more. Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based, inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected, telecommunication networks. Internet brings power to the end-users, whether you like it or not it’s a simple fact. It empowers the users to create, send, receive, store, share the information the way they like, not telecom operators or state regulators like. With very very affordable cost. That’s the benefit for people in both developing and developed world. That’s how small business comes out and become very large within a few years or shorter. That’s why how email got popular and became the essential tool for our daily life say in China as much as in South Africa. How World-Wide Web became most powerful service, which was originally born here in Geneva. Think why Yahoo, Amazon, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Skype, YouTube and many more came to flourish. Empowering the end users. All of these services are transnational, or global. Yes, it may create headaches for those who want put full control by governments as indicated with the recent Wikileaks case. But as Guardian recently put it, “Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice”. So the question now is how to manage, or govern the Internet that has this nature of empowering the end-users, businesses, activists, NGOs in the field, but also teachers, medical professionals and also you, the government people. The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or governance in that manner. And that’s why and how IGF is designed and implemented. Mr. Kofi Annan said in the opening remarks at the onset of the first IGF in Athens: “we need to be no less creative than those who invented it. Clearly, there is a need for governance, but that does not necessarily mean that it has to be done in the traditional way, for something that is so very different.” This indicates the spirit and the challenges of IGF we still stand today. Please remember, the IGF is the place for dialogue. NOT the place for decision-making, not the place for negotiation, not the place for taking votes. It’s the place to foster mutual understanding. Mutual respect. And also create consensus based on these understandings and respects. And that is the most important character as well as the achievement of the first 5 years of the IGF. By promoting these somewhat unprecedented way of dialogue, among different stakeholders from different social, cultural, geographical, economical, political backgrounds, IGF has become a very unique, effective place for the decision makers -- not only political decisions, but business decisions, social decisions, and technical decisions -- with much broader consideration and understanding - North and South, East and West – that is the actual workings and advantages of the multistakeholder approach. -------------- 3 The work of WG – to make it effective You may think that the Working Group on the improvement of IGF can be composed only by governments, provided that this WG takes all the views from all non-governmental stakeholders. In the traditional UN culture, that is the way it worked. But you are wrong now. You are wrong because that is NOT the way how the Internet works. Engineers did not come to ISO to discuss how to connect computers and share services. Managers of IP addresses, Domain Name systems, and the Root server system operators did not have to come to ITU. Business entrepreneurs did not have to come to WIPO or WTO to discuss how to manage their global services including managing the digital rights and cross-border transactions. Civil society actors, including social scientists, field service NGOs, Churches, educational institutions, political parties, MPs, did not come to discuss with state bureaucrats on how to best use the Internet to promote the rights of the users. These are the mere facts, but telling some truth. Risks of Exclusion Then what are the specific risks or problems of excluding non-governmental actors? You will deny the very nature of IGF - the place for open dialogue among different stakeholders. You will miss to see and understand what is going on and what are the real issues that we all need to collaborate to solve. We are say cats and dogs and monkeys and rabbits. We need to solve the problems in the field where all of cats and dogs and monkeys and rabbits live. Cats alone cannot solve the problems in the forest. The forest is the eco-system. Cats have not created it. WG work effectiveness – 10+10+5 We understand that you fear by opening the door to the Civil Society and private sector, the Working group will become chaotic, in addition to the different political positions of the governments, it will add more complexity and may not meet the deadline for the report. No. The experience of the WGIG between Geneva and Tunis Summits, as well as that of Multistakeholder Advisory Group shows that is the contrary. To solve complex, inter-twined issues around the Internet Governance, you need experts from all different fields and make synergy in the WG. That will be far more efficient and effective than trying to solve the problem by only one sector of expertise to decide. We promise you – by adding 10 members from global civil society pool and 10 members from global entrepreneurial business and also a few more from technical experts will increase the understanding of issues and make better IGF improvement proposal within shorter time-frame than separating governments against other stakeholders, organizing “consultations” and then negotiate among governments inside the closed-door. We promise you - we will work very hard to reach consensus with our friends in the governments – developing and developed. Civil society members come from all different backgrounds – we have members from all over the world and we ourselves have very diverse views. So I hope our respected members from the governments here do have better understanding of what IGF has achieved and then where we need to improve them. We are very much willing to improve IGF, but not backwards to degrade and backwards to the 20th century political framework. Again, it’s the Open Forum for Dialogue. ------------- 4. Areas of improvement Participation For the improvement, there are several areas we can identify. First, more participation. We all agree that. One thing we want to emphasise is the improve the remote participation All IGF meetings and related consultation meetings have had some form of remote participation so far. It is important to continue and improve this practice including that of CSTD consultation meetings itself on both IGF and EC. It is not the one way webcast streaming, it is to listen and interact with participants remotely using the state-of-the-art technologies. This allows many interested parties, including governments, but others as well who have decent interests and reasons and willingness to participate but prohibited from doing so by cost of travel or amount of time to come to Geneva. Remote participation costs little but works great – we call for support from private sector – technology companies to offer the facility and technology, and also we, IGC are willing to offer remote hub coordination – like we did at Vilnius IGF – to cover different parts of the globe. To increase participation, we also need to loosening the accreditation. ECOSOC accreditation is difficult and time-consuming to obtain. Besides, for IGF participation, it should not require general accreditation to all ECOSOC issues. Yes there is WSIS accreditation, but it is 6 years old. Think how many new people and institutions got interested in the Internet Governance issues since 2005 when the last WSIS accreditation was given. We should keep the good practice already exercised at the IGF main meetings and all consultation meetings for the participation, not to narrow the participation, but make it wider. The host government of Greece knows this, Brazil, India and Egypt all know this. Otherwise we will limit our own work to the “usual suspects” only and leaving vast new people who have strong interests and who are strongly influenced by the outcome of IGF. Same goes true for Enhanced Cooperation process and also largely to WSIS follow up process which leads to the WSIS 2015 ------------- 5. Improve the Outcome We can also consider making somewhat more visible outcomes. In addition to the contributions and synthesis of them and Dynamic Coalitions, and Chair’s summary, we might consider producing some form of Reports. Maybe some form of Recommendations, with plural ones if there are diverging views. These are all possibilities so long as they remain the place for dialogue, but not decision making. Here, we still need to discuss more. Again, the original UN GA resolution for WSIS called for full and active participation of all stakeholders – that is the source of MSH. I hope we keep that in mind and improve IGF not in the wrong and backward direction. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 03:05:23 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:05:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Contribution to CSTD inter-sessional panel and to outreach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia Thank you for this reminder and summary of the process. Can you send them because we will be very useful. Baudouin 2010/12/16 Marilia Maciel > > Dear all, > > The document attached is: > > a) a contribution to the development of CS arguments about the importance > of multistakeholder participation in the work of the CSTD regarding the > IGF. It is a result of my need to learn more about the WSIS process and the > role of CSTD. I read the main resolutions and reports published over the > last years and wrote a summary of key-points, at first to my use and studyonly. Then > I thought that this summary could be useful to others who did not > participate in WSIS. > > b) A contribution for enhancing our outreach. To mobilize other > organizations, it is important that we all make efforts to explain the main > points CS is dealing with now, that can be very complicated for people who > did not have the chance to follow the process from the start. > > If the coordinators believe it is useful, this doc could be upload (do we > have a wiki?) for corrections, comments, detailing, etc. This way we would > always have an updated text and would have access to important references, > resolutions numbers, etc more easily. > > Best, > > Marilia > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 04:19:22 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:19:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Wg Message-ID: Meeting just started. Chair did not ask non govembers to leave. Mr. Rehil started the report on WG Composition negotiation. Composition 5 from each region gov only. Report be at end of March. To hear from all stakeholders. Some countries are not happy and made reservation. Now Chair asked for nongovs to leave the room for 45 min to allow go s to adopt the report on Dec 6. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 05:12:39 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:12:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round II Message-ID: Now the door was opened and CSTD WG meeting starting the discussion. Philippines, Malaysia, India, all support Gov only WG saying ECOSOC South Africa - not set other stakeholders modality of participation Brazil - three member states - Argentina, Chile, Costalica to nominate WG Greece - important in the final outcome that all views are reflected, hearing all views, but unclear about the process. Are we talking about open consultation process? talk goes on ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 05:16:18 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:16:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Iran Composition – governments only We are to abide rules and regulations – benefit from input from all stakeholders Support Philippines to Russia Chile Clarification – know from Iran, what exactly on rules and regulations Iran Pass to Secretariat for rules of participation of other stakeholders 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU : > Now the door was opened and CSTD WG meeting starting the discussion. > > Philippines, Malaysia, India,  all support Gov only WG saying ECOSOC > South Africa - not set other stakeholders modality of participation > Brazil - three member states - Argentina, Chile, Costalica to nominate WG > Greece - important in the final outcome that all views are reflected, > hearing all views, > but unclear about the process. Are we talking about open consultation process? > > talk goes on > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 05:25:33 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:25:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ICC Marily Cade EU ECOSOC- all stakeholder WG – in open and inclusive manner With all due respect, Surbodinate UN body cannot change this Participation of all stakeholders Portugal Success of IGF is due to MSH, not due to governments How to make improvements without actors Civil Society, business, academia - they are all important parts of IGF ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 05:32:11 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:32:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tunisia Head of states – sprit of Tunis – equal participation of all stakeholders More important No need to change the rules by head of states in 2005 in Tunis Multistakeholder spirit and work China Agree with Philipines, malyasia, India, South Africa and Iran WG are by governments UK Importance of principles of diversity, Look at the intention of ECOSOC resolution – clear All stakeholders engagement Firm standing - taking account of ECOSOC ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 05:34:37 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:34:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Janna UK Importance of principles of diversity, Look at the intention of ECOSOC resolution – clear All stakeholders engagement There’s precedent Strongly proposes – equally balanced – gov and non government members Sri Lanka Support Philippines, India .. This is WG of CSTD Use the interpretation of EU Mongi – clarification Participation by observers – allowed the voice of views, but not to the decisions Israel Like to giving floor to organizations, then reserve the right Cuba WG only by member states Germany Support UK and Portugal for broad participation non governmental, on equal numbers, same status, not observers Finland Express support UK and Portugal 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU : > Tunisia > Head of states – sprit of Tunis – equal participation of all stakeholders > More important > No need to change the rules by head of states in 2005 in Tunis > Multistakeholder spirit and work > > China > Agree with Philipines, malyasia, India, South Africa and Iran > WG are by governments > > UK > Importance of principles of diversity, > Look at the intention of ECOSOC resolution – clear > All stakeholders engagement > Firm standing - taking account of ECOSOC > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 05:40:46 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:40:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: a) Need for "enhanced" (not degraded) multistakeholder approach - Why multistakeholder so important? * **1. The implementation of the Geneva Plan of Action requires a working synergybetween all actors in the country: governments, public sectors, civil society, international organizations, regional and subregional agencies and the UN system, some were designated as coordinators for the implementation of the chapters of this action plan. 2.The exponential growth of digital technology requires that there be a constant and regular dialogue between all these actors to capitalize on experience andminimize the negative use of this technology. 3.The objectives stipulated in the processes of the World Summit on theInformation Society are the result of a long international cooperation and who wanted that digital technology can be a corrective to all development programsthat have not have succeeded* *. * - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as CSTD IGF WG *-the issues debated since the first meeting of the IGF prove sufficiently that the Geneva Action Plan completed by the Tunis Agenda has not yet reached 50% of its achievements, more specifically, in countries development. African governments have yet to master these processes and still can not properly bind digital technology and development. **MSH approach fills many gaps in control, communication and the realization of this technology, in particular, the chapters 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10 RAP Geneva.* - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding non-governmental actors in the process *-**The non-governmental actors develop 85% local projects in developing countries to benefit populations. **They participate in all meeting national, subregional, regional and international ICT-related. They help to inform policy makers on ICT policies and their implementation. They raise funds for the implementation of ICT projects while creating laboratories for technological solutions adapted to each environment** *Baudouin 2010/12/16 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > Here, I prepared Draft "Talking points" for us to make as statement at > the Friday meeting. > > I plan to extract the points from our consensus statement, first, but like > to go further more, given the discussion at NY meeting on EC etc. > > So I invite you to make your comments, so that we have more integrated > views expressed, if not a full consensus in 48 hours. > > best, > > izumi > > -------- > > a) Need for "enhanced" (not degraded) multistakeholder approach > > - Why multistakeholder so important? > - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet > governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as > CSTD IGF WG > - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding > non-governmental actors in the process > > b) c) Need for enhancing participation > 1) Need for remote participation within IGF Consultation process > - All IGF meetings and related consultation meetings have had some > form of remote participation. It is important to continue this > practice at CSTD consultation meetings on both IGF and EC. This allows > many interested parties, including governments, but mostly civil > society actors who have decent interests and reasons and willingness > to participate but prohibited from doing so by cost of travel and > amount of time to spend to have 5 minutes slots if lucky… > - Remote participation costs little but works great – call for support > from private sector – technology companies > - IGC is willing to help coordinate – like we did at Vilnius IGF > - > 2) Expanding accreditation > - There should be new process to give new accreditation to IGF > consultation process if we are to “improve” it, not just to continue > it > - WSIS accreditation is 6 years old and limited > - ECOSOC accreditation is difficult and time-consuming to obtain > > - Otherwise we will limit our own work to the “usual suspects” only > and leaving vast new people who now have strong interest and who are > strongly influenced by the outcome of Internet Governance, albeit IGF > alone > - Same goes true for Enhanced Cooperation and also largely to WSIS > follow up which leads to the WSIS 2015 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 05:48:42 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:48:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Egypt Reading ECOSOC resolution – MSH, inter-governmental nature be preserved WG has been already established through Chair’s decision this morning We do have guidelines – ECOSOC 2/2010 Draft Second Committee resolution – gave guidelines on how this process Para 19 – consideration of improvement of IGF – based on all member states and other stakeholders Urge to devote this session to have constructive dialogue Belgium Fully support UK, Portugal, Germany, Finland In favor of balanced membership of all stakeholders Mozambique Feel somehow from clarification by Mongi Mozambique is not the member of CSTD My feeling – we speak about MSH, that - all members participate on equal footing – govs, civil society, academia, IGOs We would not have parity in terms of numbers, but rights to debate and participate in decision making process Let’s follow the procedure Keep it – but if not that is the case, then let everyone participate on equal footing Austria Balanced participation of all stakeholders with balanced composition in holistic manner Pakistan Support Philipines etc Slovakia Support Sri Lanka Chile More practical – appeal to your wisdom. We are seeing two interpretations as main avenues It is time for you, Chiar, to narrow down to get to consensus EU No decision on establishment of this group. Partial decision of government group only this morning. ECOSOC resolution – invitation to CSTD Chair by ECOSOC A few more govs, then it's our turn. kept wait for say 20 govs even I did raise my hand and noted by the secretariat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 06:36:09 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:36:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Argentina A few participation of other stakeholders – decision be made by member states. Greece Comment on – Egypt and Mozambique Governments are observers – same as other stakeholders Egypt – we were going around circles, but try find the modality to include other stakeholders in realistic manner Leaving little time to other stakeholders if they were put at the end. Find solution. Israel Wanted to hear some Civil society members who are in the room. We are hear for two ours to sit and do dialogues – member states talking only – but this is not dialogue. We are establishing working group. Open and inclusive. We need to progress as world progress. South Africa ICC is not government, they took the floor. So it was not dominated by governments! We have resolution. It is clear as EU colleague outlined. Para 40 – clear – Going against UN principle Move forward We have decided that there is inter-governmental WG South Africa participated from the day one of IGF. So we don’t want to hear that governments don’t know what they are talking about. Equal footing, no in the UN fora, yes, for IGF. US Refreshed by the level of discussion Member states have dominated the conversation until now. ECOSOC resolution –very important document. IGF be extended for five years. Para 17 – second commission - WG US to support UK, Chile, Portugal and others – equal footing for other stakeholders We are in a unique situation in CSTD – to embrace open manner a process from WSIS, embodied in Tunis Agenda- five year of success and extended So CSTD WG, that has been requested – has unique hybrid condition to work with. As Egyptian, and South Africa colleague said – We have to be creative Bit more boldly into new dimensions. How CSTD - open fashin WSIS Real room for imagination and innovation in the modality India Moving into circles, but encouraged by SA, and USA. We have to focus on the substance, not the form. Innovative and creative thing. This will not happen until and beyond the form of composition. Reality – UN rules do not allow non-governmental actors to say – in this setting. ECOSOC 2010/226 Without pregedious to established rules and procedures– to extend invitation civil society – until 2011 NGOs accredited by ECOSOC – to sit as observers to public meetings As India, we have supported vibrant multi-stakeholder But today, we are sitting inside CSTD, UN rules to be applied WGIG – participation of this group, by members of individual capacity This will put precedents in serious consequences The Rules of UN has to be respected France France support fully balanced all stakeholders UNESCO Highlighted that Internet is an important enabler – to enhance free flow of information Strong supporter of IGF, Important achievements made Participation – require no accreditation Non-negotiating nature Fundamental role of MAG in insuring UNESCO strongly support to maintain essential achievements - how to raise interest – in particular, developing countries governments - all stakeholder – be insured APC Endorse what Tunisa said. This is a short-term group to come up with reports, Not a decision making body. WG made up of individuals. Just like WGIG. Consideration and accountability CSTD has to take into consideration. People-centered development Internet Society IGC Izumi made the intervention Nominet Martin Boyle Explaining WGIG It made recommendations. Clear parallel to UNSG creating WGIG and CSTD creating WG. ICANN Echo what has been said in relation to WSIS, necessity to continue the same spirit in composition for WG. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 06:37:53 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:37:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is close to what I stated on behalf of IGC, as draft I was reading mostly but, last portion has been modifiedon the fly as the time gets longer... 1. Why it should be MSH My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus that has been engaged in WSIS and IGF very actively. I have been involved with Internet governance since around 1996. I was the local host of Singapore’s IFWP back in 1998, after attending first one in Washington DC and the second meeting in Geneva that summer, that essentially led the creation of ICANN. I participated all the PrepComs of the WSIS I and WSIS II. In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some government representatives started to realize that maybe it’s good idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names systems that government friends have very little clue of the very subject they are talking about. We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF. There is short history of Multistakeholder, with invisible efforts of many people inside and outside the governments and UN system. Why multistakeholder so important? The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders – and created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism. ECOSOC resolutions also clearly support this multistakeholder principle. So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC fully appreciate and support the balanced participation of all stakeholder proposed by UK and Portugal and other governments and UNESCO. Now, more specifically - This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice The consultations in IGF Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair’s summary: “that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive sprit and principles of the IGF should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD WG.” “Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost, about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it multi-stakeholder. Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the approach regarding Internet Governance. Reverting to a purely intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in May. 2 Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it? It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a little more. Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based, inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected, telecommunication networks. The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or governance in that manner. And that’s why and how IGF is designed and implemented. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 07:03:39 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:03:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi-san, am enjoying your reports! -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 07:31:21 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:31:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Izumi, were you able to gather any reactions or responses to the statement you made? So far it seems that there is sort of an argument going on between developing country and EU govts that is not taking things anywhere. My country's comments would be obvious since many ministers in the cabinet were sacked two days ago including the guy that sat in the CSTD so we have a totally uninformed participant possibly from the Geneva office trying to play know it all. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > This is close to what I stated on behalf of IGC, as draft I was > reading mostly but, last portion has been modifiedon the fly as the > time gets > longer... > > 1. > Why it should be MSH > My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected > co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus that > has been engaged in WSIS and IGF very actively. I have been involved > with Internet governance since around 1996. I was the local host of > Singapore’s IFWP back in 1998, after attending first one in Washington > DC and the second meeting in Geneva that summer, that essentially led > the creation of ICANN. I participated all the PrepComs of the WSIS I > and WSIS II. > > In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter > the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given > five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some > government representatives started to realize that maybe it’s good > idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names > systems that government friends have very little clue of the very > subject they are talking about. > We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF. > There is short history of Multistakeholder, with invisible efforts of > many people inside and outside the governments and UN system. > > Why multistakeholder so important? > The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance > should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders – and > created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism. > ECOSOC resolutions also clearly support this multistakeholder > principle. > > So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage > to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly > a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed > in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC fully > appreciate and support the balanced participation of all stakeholder > proposed by UK and Portugal and other governments and UNESCO. > > Now, more specifically > - This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened > by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice > > The consultations in IGF Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group > composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair’s summary: >  “that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive sprit and > principles of the IGF should continue to guide the composition, > modalities and working methods of the CSTD WG.” > “Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it > was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number > of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society > and the private sector. > A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the > model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) > Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost, > about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it > multi-stakeholder. > > Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the > approach regarding Internet Governance. Reverting to a purely > intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the > difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in > May. > > 2 > Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it? > It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to > many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new > environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a > little more. > > Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared > network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based, > inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected, > telecommunication networks. > > The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or > governance in that manner. And that’s why and how IGF is designed and > implemented. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > 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 raquelgatto at uol.com.br Fri Dec 17 07:36:49 2010 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:36:49 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II - thanks, Izumi! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d0b5961bd9fa_37f936afe7032b@weasel8.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 08:29:56 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:29:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: William Drake Academic, based in Geneva, spent throught WSIS and IGF. Echo with all non-governmental actors: Focus on operational issues – Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG – gave benefits to governmental members even they were from governments. It was the cake. In a working group – equal footing – built trust and came up with effective recommendations. If you make that WG – end-up with very poliarized positions between different actors, not fruitful at the end. Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration. Tunisia I didn’t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO – effectively Equal participation does not mean equal political status. Brazil Welcomes the way we found today for way out. Always respecting UN rules. Offer – suggestion regarding openness and transparency 1) Fully committed to openness  Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting  Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five representative, in self-organizing way Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC 2) Committed to transparency Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting ?? agree with India. All organizations have to work according to UN rules. Adjourn for Lunch 3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you to c -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at isoc-mu.org Fri Dec 17 08:30:39 2010 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:30:39 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C282755BFC4444C8557CABE8D01C793@director> Thanks Izumi for your reports Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal President - Internet Society of Mauritius | Member - ICANN At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) | Member - PIR .ORG Advisory Council |) Tel 230 2578703 | Fax +230 6778059 | Royal Road, Union Park. Mauritius | Email dave at kmpglobal.com | http://www.kmpglobal.com -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:38 PM To: Governance List Subject: [governance] Re: Round II This is close to what I stated on behalf of IGC, as draft I was reading mostly but, last portion has been modifiedon the fly as the time gets longer... 1. Why it should be MSH My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus that has been engaged in WSIS and IGF very actively. I have been involved with Internet governance since around 1996. I was the local host of Singapore's IFWP back in 1998, after attending first one in Washington DC and the second meeting in Geneva that summer, that essentially led the creation of ICANN. I participated all the PrepComs of the WSIS I and WSIS II. In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some government representatives started to realize that maybe it's good idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names systems that government friends have very little clue of the very subject they are talking about. We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF. There is short history of Multistakeholder, with invisible efforts of many people inside and outside the governments and UN system. Why multistakeholder so important? The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders - and created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism. ECOSOC resolutions also clearly support this multistakeholder principle. So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC fully appreciate and support the balanced participation of all stakeholder proposed by UK and Portugal and other governments and UNESCO. Now, more specifically - This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice The consultations in IGF Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair's summary: "that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive sprit and principles of the IGF should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD WG." "Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair's suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost, about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it multi-stakeholder. Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the approach regarding Internet Governance. Reverting to a purely intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in May. 2 Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it? It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a little more. Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based, inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected, telecommunication networks. The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or governance in that manner. And that's why and how IGF is designed and implemented. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 17 08:44:37 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:44:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi, thanks very much for all this reporting. Could someone give the URL of the document with the all important paragraph 40. I am sure I should know it... but not clue how to find. Thanks, Adam >William Drake >Academic, based in Geneva, spent throught WSIS and IGF. >Echo with all non-governmental actors: >Focus on operational issues ­ > >Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG ­ gave benefits to governmental members >even they were from governments. >It was the cake. >In a working group ­ equal footing ­ built trust and came up with >effective recommendations. > >If you make that WG ­ end-up with very poliarized positions between >different actors, not fruitful at the end. >Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration. > >Tunisia >I didn¹t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders >Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also >para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO >­ effectively >Equal participation does not mean equal political status. > >Brazil >Welcomes the way we found today for way out. >Always respecting UN rules. >Offer ­ suggestion regarding openness and transparency > >1) Fully committed to openness > Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting > Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five >representative, in self-organizing way >Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who >were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC >2) Committed to transparency >Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting > >?? >agree with India. >All organizations have to work according to UN rules. > >Adjourn for Lunch > >3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you >to c > > >-- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 08:46:47 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:46:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <211231765-1292593569-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1888952401-@bda616.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Dear Izumi, I find it amazing that I can be here in Saint Lucia invigilating a History exam and yet also following the meeting. Thank you for making that possible. Deirdre Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:29:56 To: Governance List Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU Subject: [governance] Round II William Drake Academic, based in Geneva, spent throught WSIS and IGF. Echo with all non-governmental actors: Focus on operational issues – Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG – gave benefits to governmental members even they were from governments. It was the cake. In a working group – equal footing – built trust and came up with effective recommendations. If you make that WG – end-up with very poliarized positions between different actors, not fruitful at the end. Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration. Tunisia I didn’t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO – effectively Equal participation does not mean equal political status. Brazil Welcomes the way we found today for way out. Always respecting UN rules. Offer – suggestion regarding openness and transparency 1) Fully committed to openness  Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting  Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five representative, in self-organizing way Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC 2) Committed to transparency Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting ?? agree with India. All organizations have to work according to UN rules. Adjourn for Lunch 3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you to c -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 08:54:22 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:54:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I call it a good method of communication. Thank you Izumi Baudouin 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU > William Drake > Academic, based in Geneva, spent throught WSIS and IGF. > Echo with all non-governmental actors: > Focus on operational issues – > > Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG – gave benefits to governmental members > even they were from governments. > It was the cake. > In a working group – equal footing – built trust and came up with > effective recommendations. > > If you make that WG – end-up with very poliarized positions between > different actors, not fruitful at the end. > Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration. > > Tunisia > I didn’t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders > Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also > para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO > – effectively > Equal participation does not mean equal political status. > > Brazil > Welcomes the way we found today for way out. > Always respecting UN rules. > Offer – suggestion regarding openness and transparency > > 1) Fully committed to openness > Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting > Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five > representative, in self-organizing way > Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who > were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC > 2) Committed to transparency > Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting > > ?? > agree with India. > All organizations have to work according to UN rules. > > Adjourn for Lunch > > 3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you > to c > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 08:53:48 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:53:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Live from New York - EC consultation webcasting now In-Reply-To: <9saE$XbLCPCNFAbb@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <9saE$XbLCPCNFAbb@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message <9saE$XbLCPCNFAbb at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 16:44:59 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry writes >>http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html > >Unfortunately, that's only the afternoon session. The morning session (audio only) is now available: -- 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 iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 09:04:29 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:04:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, two-hour lunch is ending now, and reconvene within a few minutes. During lunch hours, as usual, some hall way conversation and lobbying were made. Some government guy was trying to "lobby" the civil society and private sector to sell some options of creating Task Force under WG, or rotating membership from non-governmental actors, invited speakers, etc. None of them, of course, will give equal status within WG. The Madam Chair will make her proposal soon and will see how it goes with governments first, and we will be given floor later. I think we will not reach any decisive consensus today, and will leave some unresolved areas to the informal negotiations in Genava (and elsewhere). I do not plan to "accept" IGC position, in any case, but may try to show some preferences if there is more viable proposal. But I think that is very much unlikely. Stay tuned, please. izumi 2010/12/17 Baudouin SCHOMBE : > I call it a good method of communication. Thank you Izumi > > Baudouin > > > > 2010/12/17 Izumi AIZU >> >> William Drake >> Academic, based in Geneva, spent throught WSIS and IGF. >> Echo with all non-governmental actors: >> Focus on operational issues – >> >> Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG – gave benefits to governmental members >> even they were from governments. >> It was the cake. >> In a working group – equal footing – built trust and came up with >> effective recommendations. >> >> If you make that WG – end-up with very poliarized positions between >> different actors, not fruitful at the end. >> Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration. >> >> Tunisia >> I didn’t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders >> Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also >> para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO >> – effectively >> Equal participation does not mean equal political status. >> >> Brazil >> Welcomes the way we found today for way out. >> Always respecting UN rules. >> Offer – suggestion regarding openness and transparency >> >> 1) Fully committed to openness >>  Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting >>  Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five >> representative, in self-organizing way >> Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who >> were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC >> 2) Committed to transparency >> Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting >> >> ?? >> agree with India. >> All organizations have to work according to UN rules. >> >> Adjourn for Lunch >> >> 3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you >> to c >> >> >> -- >>                        >> Izumi Aizu << >> >>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>                                  Japan >>                                 * * * * * >>           << Writing the Future of the History >> >>                                www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 09:07:05 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:37:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0B6E89.80602@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 09:08:57 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:08:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam, I am puzzled because from what Izumi said, Tunisia referred to resolution 2010/11 which, if I am not mistaken, has nothing to do with what we are discussing (talks about the NEPAD, apparently). The resolution adopted by ECOSOC was 2010/2 and is accessible here : http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/ecosoc_res2010d2_en.pdf The resolution adopted by the general assembly in November is accessible here (the final draft) : http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ac265l56_en.pdf None of them has a paragraph 40 .... ???? Best B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Izumi, thanks very much for all this reporting. > > Could someone give the URL of the document with the all important paragraph > 40. I am sure I should know it... but not clue how to find. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > William Drake >> Academic, based in Geneva, spent throught WSIS and IGF. >> Echo with all non-governmental actors: >> Focus on operational issues ­ >> >> Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG ­ gave benefits to governmental members >> even they were from governments. >> It was the cake. >> In a working group ­ equal footing ­ built trust and came up with >> effective recommendations. >> >> If you make that WG ­ end-up with very poliarized positions between >> different actors, not fruitful at the end. >> Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration. >> >> Tunisia >> I didn¹t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders >> Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also >> para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO >> ­ effectively >> Equal participation does not mean equal political status. >> >> Brazil >> Welcomes the way we found today for way out. >> Always respecting UN rules. >> Offer ­ suggestion regarding openness and transparency >> >> 1) Fully committed to openness >> Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting >> Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five >> representative, in self-organizing way >> Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who >> were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC >> 2) Committed to transparency >> Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting >> >> ?? >> agree with India. >> All organizations have to work according to UN rules. >> >> Adjourn for Lunch >> >> 3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you >> to c >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org Fri Dec 17 09:13:46 2010 From: francois.ullmann at ingenieursdumonde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Ullmann) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:13:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1292595226-1b1864184b0f7b7988bc4a1f186c09eb@ingenieursdumonde.org> Many thanks Izumi for your wonderful help. Congratulations for your work Dr. Francois ULLMANN President of the NGO " Ingenieurs du Monde" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 09:17:33 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:17:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:04, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I do not plan to "accept" IGC position, in any case, but may try to > show some preferences if there is more viable proposal. But > I think that is very much unlikely. I hope that in showing preferences you only show preference for equal treatment for all stakeholders. With the WGIG/MAG mix of 50% government and 50% everyone else being a fall back compromise position at best. and anything else casing delegitimization by CS for their efforts. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 17 09:18:10 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:18:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 22:44:37 on Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Adam Peake writes >Could someone give the URL of the document with the all important >paragraph 40. I am sure I should know it... but not clue how to find. It can't be ECOSOC resolution 2010-11, because that doesn't have 40 paragraphs :( http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/docs/2010/res%202010-11.pdf Nor does the resolution setting up the IGF Improvement WG, or the resolution recently agreed in Second Committee regarding IGF renewal. -- 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Dec 17 09:20:13 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:20:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nice reporting, Izumi! You are the next best thing to being there! George ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 09:20:22 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:20:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Message-ID: After Lunch Chair Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. As chair I listened carefully. Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. Proposal for consideration We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. >From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. The leadership of these organizations will be able to select representatives to join the member states of WG. WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, WG has the limited duration. WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 09:24:04 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:24:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: The due diligence process for ICANN NomCom appointees In-Reply-To: <7E4D35DD-E90F-497F-81E3-E7C2F590A5A7@acm.org> References: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> <7E4D35DD-E90F-497F-81E3-E7C2F590A5A7@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri, hi One of the issues NomCom took away from our meeting with the non-commercial stakeholders group in Cartagena was concern about due diligence. We discussed it at our first meeting last week, we will look into it and will make improvements. And the long silence candidates have endured is also something we will try to fix, I hope with regular notes, a blog reporting on what we're doing , and better communication with candidates. ICANN NomComs always struggle over the desire for openness and the need to protect confidentiality, plus the usual problem that volunteers lack time. There's been a general trend in ICANN towards increased transparency, we'll try to follow it. I hope people won't be put off from becoming candidates. The request for statements of interest will be released very soon. NomCom appointees have done much to improve ICANN. Some extremely good directors and people who have been chairs of the Board, GNSO and ALAC have come through the NomCom. I agree people should be participate in working groups, that's where a lot of the work gets done, but ICANN also needs leaders who will promote the public interest. Adam >Hi George, > >All well and good. I have only advised people >to make sure they knew what they were getting >into. > >I find it interesting to now know that the >Corporate Secretary, also an ICANN legal staff >employee, is informed of all of the private >information obtained. In the past, I was told >no one from ICANN staff saw any of it. Now we >know it is at least nobody - 1 see it. What >about the rest of his staff, also ICANN >employees? Anyone else? The opacity of this >process, consistent with ICANN's culture of >secrecy, makes the entire chain of custody for >the private information very suspect. > >Note, I agree with the need for due diligence >when if comes to Board members who have >fiduciary responsibility. I do not agree with >the ICANN Staff being responsible for it or >having access to this information.  > >As for the arduous process, I was not referring >to the due diligence per se. That is just a >simple form where you sign away your privacy >rights, and I have signed it several times. I >am referring to the application process and the >long forms required of one's references. And >then the long wait in the dark while the process >unwinds with the only news one gets being the >rumors that always leak. I encourage people to >know what they are getting involved in. > >I encourage people to consider the nomcom >process, but I warn them to make sure they know >what they are getting into first. But I mostly >ask them to consider getting involved in the >give and take of ICANN's working group process >where the work is actually done. > >a. > > > >On 16 Dec 2010, at 10:52, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> All, >> >> I would respectfully disagree with Avri's >>reaction to the privacy implications of the >>degree of due diligence that ICANN applies to >>selected nominees for the positions to be >>filled by the Nominating Committee. I speak >>from my experience as Chair of the Nominating >>Committee in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and I doubt >>that the due diligence process has changed >>significantly since that time. >> >> Being on the Board of a Corporation comes with >>a serious fiduciary responsibility for its >>proper fiscal management. Corporations must >>perform adequate due diligence on prospective >>Directors. We have all seen news reports of >>people who claimed non-existent degrees, or >>worse, licenses to practice medicine. It's >>important to ensure that there is an adequate >>understanding of the backgrounds of people to >>whom Directorships are offered. A lesser >>degree of due diligence is appropriate for >>membership on the Councils of the Supporting >>organizations. >> >> I have executed due diligence processes for >>the NomCom for three years. With one exception >>that required full discussion, only I and the >>Corporation Secretary have been privy to the >>results. Further, I have gone through the due >>diligence process myself, and I found it >>neither objectionably invasive nor >>uncomfortable. > > >> Bottom line: if you are interested in ICANN >>leadership positions, I would encourage you to >>apply, and to consider the due diligence >>process an understandable and necessary part of >>the selection process. >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> At 8:58 AM -0500 12/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >>> On 16 Dec 2010, at 07:12, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>>http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ >>>> >>>> >>>> No, this >>>> >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>> >>> >>> Think carefully before you get involved in >>>the the ICANN nomcom process. Make sure you >>>understand the incredible degree of privacy >>>you will have to give up to ICANN and its >>>hired investigators before going through a >>>very long and arduous process that is likely >>>to leave you, and those you ask for >>>references, feeling very burned. >>> >>> It is not that I recommend against getting >>>involved, and I encourage as many people as >>>possible to get involved in the working groups >>>and other efforts that are open to all. I >>>just recommend caution when getting involved >>>with its Nomcom - get a full picture first of >>>what they will ask of you, especially if you >>>are chosen. And make sure you are comfortable >>>with the role of the ICANN staff, the access >>>they (especially their legal department) may >>>or may not have with the information their >>>investigators find and the degree of guarantee >>>you are given on the protection of your >>>privacy. >>> >>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 09:24:43 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:24:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:04, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> >> I do not plan to "accept" IGC position, in any case, but may try to >> show some preferences if there is more viable proposal. But >> I think that is very much unlikely. > > > I hope that in showing preferences you only show preference for equal treatment for all stakeholders. > > With the WGIG/MAG mix of 50% government and 50% everyone else being a fall back compromise position at best. +1 -- 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 Fri Dec 17 09:27:31 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:27:31 -0200 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0B7353.4050904@cafonso.ca> Izumi is one of my Japanese friends, and if I include the niseei and sansei friends, this means dozens of friends (Brazil is probably the largest host to communities of Japanese origin outside Japan). I have nissei and sansei friends since my early childhood. :) Pity, I speak next to nothing Japanese... :( --c.a. On 12/17/2010 12:20 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Nice reporting, Izumi! > > You are the next best thing to being there! > > George > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 avri at acm.org Fri Dec 17 09:28:20 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:28:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Hi, How many government members in the WG? a. On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: > After Lunch > > Chair > Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. > As chair I listened carefully. > Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. > Proposal for consideration > > We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. > From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community > 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. > The leadership of these organizations will be able to select > representatives to join the member states of WG. > > WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, > WG has the limited duration. > WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. > Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 09:29:21 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:29:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: well, Govs are 15 plus host of five, CS, Private Sector and Academic and Technical Community 5+5+5 is 15. It's not 100% equal, but in the feeling in the room, I tend to propose to support this. Somewhat better than lobbying. BUT it 's hardly imaginable that those countries who are requesting gov be superior to other stakeholders will accept this without some modification. izumi 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:04, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> >> I do not plan to "accept" IGC position, in any case, but may try to >> show some preferences if there is more viable proposal. But >> I think that is very much unlikely. > > > I hope that in showing preferences you only show preference for equal treatment for all stakeholders. > > With the WGIG/MAG mix of 50% government and 50% everyone else being a fall back compromise position at best. > > and anything else casing delegitimization by CS for their efforts. > > 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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 09:30:58 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:30:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. izumi 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > How many government members in the WG? > > a. > > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> After Lunch >> >> Chair >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. >> As chair I listened carefully. >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. >> Proposal for consideration >> >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select >> representatives to join the member states of WG. >> >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, >> WG has the limited duration. >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 09:32:35 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:32:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Philippines Don’t limit the numbers of stakeholders to participate, but WG be limited to governments. Portugal Need to better understand your proposal. WG – government plus stakeholders? Chair Both governments plus stakeholders, with no difference. Portugal Then I think it’s a good proposal. Sri Lanka Civil society can have same status as governments Malaysia Echo with Phillipines and Sri Lanka We should not limit number of stakeholders to participate, and WG be only by governments. Cuba Same as Ph, Sri Lanka Chile Support this proposal Members can change the rules of procedure. USG We think this proposal is most worthy. Thank the modality, good. We associate with all who are in favor of this proposal. India We must express our surprise to the proposal. In the morning, it was abundantly clear, putting stakeholders in same footing is not acceptable and now allowed by current procedure. We don’t think procedure can be changed. 5 for Academic and technical community, 5 for civil society and 5 for private sector. But Tunis Agenda includes governments, civil society and private sector, and Intergovermental organizations, where are they? Chair – I did mention that. In any case, we align with Malaysia.. Chair – I did include IGOs. Mozambique It’s a good proposal. Iran Don't accept. South Africa surprising - this is advisory to Chair - not our understanding. This is CSTD WG, not comfortable with Chair's proposal, Academic and Civil society fall under one stakeholder. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 09:36:40 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:36:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, i.e. is is 20:15 what about IGO's? This is not even close to parity. Are we indeed playing beggar at the door? What do the Technical Community and Business think? a. On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:29, Izumi AIZU wrote: > well, Govs are 15 plus host of five, > CS, Private Sector and Academic and Technical Community 5+5+5 is 15. > It's not 100% equal, but in the feeling in the room, I tend to propose > to support this. > > Somewhat better than lobbying. BUT it 's hardly imaginable that > those countries who are requesting gov be superior to other stakeholders > will accept this without some modification. > > izumi > > 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : >> >> On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:04, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> >>> I do not plan to "accept" IGC position, in any case, but may try to >>> show some preferences if there is more viable proposal. But >>> I think that is very much unlikely. >> >> >> I hope that in showing preferences you only show preference for equal treatment for all stakeholders. >> >> With the WGIG/MAG mix of 50% government and 50% everyone else being a fall back compromise position at best. >> >> and anything else casing delegitimization by CS for their efforts. >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 09:41:46 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:41:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Mongi Academics – ECOSOC adopted 2010/27? Participation of academic entities on Science and technical areas are approved in addition to Civil Society. Belgium Good compromise In favor of limiting the number of stakeholders Markus Kummer Historical information Stakeholder definition in 2003 Added Business and Civil Society International Organizations and Inter-governmental organizations Reason – there are organizations running the Internet but not involved in IGOs. In WGIG, in between Geneva and Tunis New category of stakeholders emerged – academic and technical community – not fully fallen into other categories, but that’s why Tunis Agenda included them, but then Diplomats did not want to include them – so under the Sub-category, but it was clear that they are separate entity, Then in IGF, technical community was dealt separately, those managing the Internet technical operation. Executive Office – no need to invite IGOs, but “open door” policy, any IGOs (ITU) and regional ones, OECD – and Arab League all participated. This arrangement worked well in pragmatic ways. WSIS Summit gave mandate to UN SG – outside of rules of procedures of UN, that do not foresee the multistakholders in the UN Bill Drake – the success of WGIG was that allowed all stakeholders sitting in the same room and talked. Chair WG is WG of Chair Let’s go back to ECOSOC It is to make recommendations – WG of Chair Recommendations will be fed to CSTD for approval. We will carry, I will drop “advisory”, but it is WG of Chair Intergovernmental, CS, business group, Academic and Technical We must agree with four. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 09:44:51 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:44:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chair added IGOs, no numbers... The atmosphere of the room is all European and North Americans are supporting this Chair's proposal. Asking more, strongly, does not seem to be the good strategy, but let me see for a while. In any case, this will not be accepted by all. izumi 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : > hi, > > i.e. is is 20:15 > > what about IGO's? > > > This is not even close to parity.  Are we indeed playing beggar at the door? > > What do the Technical Community and Business think? > > a. > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:29, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> well, Govs are 15 plus host of five, >> CS, Private Sector and Academic and Technical Community 5+5+5 is 15. >> It's not 100% equal, but in the feeling in the room, I tend to propose >> to support this. >> >> Somewhat better than lobbying. BUT it 's hardly imaginable that >> those countries who are requesting gov be superior to other stakeholders >> will accept this without some modification. >> >> izumi >> >> 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : >>> >>> On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:04, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I do not plan to "accept" IGC position, in any case, but may try to >>>> show some preferences if there is more viable proposal. But >>>> I think that is very much unlikely. >>> >>> >>> I hope that in showing preferences you only show preference for equal treatment for all stakeholders. >>> >>> With the WGIG/MAG mix of 50% government and 50% everyone else being a fall back compromise position at best. >>> >>> and anything else casing delegitimization by CS for their efforts. >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >>                         >> Izumi Aizu << >> >>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>                                   Japan >>                                  * * * * * >>            << Writing the Future of the History >> >>                                 www.anr.org >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 17 09:54:44 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:54:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: The due diligence process for ICANN NomCom appointees In-Reply-To: References: <551B8BE5-C90A-470A-B81A-23B131DC6033@acm.org> <7E4D35DD-E90F-497F-81E3-E7C2F590A5A7@acm.org> Message-ID: <2F827F7B-D103-4DAB-B11B-7DFB1607E135@acm.org> Dear Adam, Thanks for notification of these changes, they seem like steps in the right direction. Unfortunately, to my mind, legal staff and perhaps others, are still involved in the parts of the process that should be secret due to privacy concerns. So my warning to be careful and consider carefully still stands. I know that for myself, after years of having applications in the front of the Nomcom, over half of which were successful, I have withdrawn my name from consideration by any group that has ICANN staff involvement. I am saying that so that people don't assume I am recommending care and possible avoidance of a process I will be taking advantage of. In my view, until such time as ICANN Staff is replaced in the Nomcom process by an outside contractor I do not believe the process can be trusted. The ICANN Staff should not be in the position to affect the choice of volunteers by either acts of commission or omission, nor should they be hold private information about Directors and other volunteers. I am _not_ making claims that the private information has been misused, the situation is too opaque for me to know, but the situation is such that it could happen and it looks like it could happen. This is a situation that I believe needs to be remedied. I also add that I am saying this as someone who is strongly supportive of ICANN and its progress towards becoming a genuinely multistakeholder organization, and as someone who believes in the ICANN Nomcom process, despite wanting to see it improved. a. On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:24, Adam Peake wrote: > Avri, hi > > One of the issues NomCom took away from our meeting with the non-commercial stakeholders group in Cartagena was concern about due diligence. We discussed it at our first meeting last week, we will look into it and will make improvements. > > And the long silence candidates have endured is also something we will try to fix, I hope with regular notes, a blog reporting on what we're doing , and better communication with candidates. ICANN NomComs always struggle over the desire for openness and the need to protect confidentiality, plus the usual problem that volunteers lack time. There's been a general trend in ICANN towards increased transparency, we'll try to follow it. > > I hope people won't be put off from becoming candidates. The request for statements of interest will be released very soon. NomCom appointees have done much to improve ICANN. Some extremely good directors and people who have been chairs of the Board, GNSO and ALAC have come through the NomCom. I agree people should be participate in working groups, that's where a lot of the work gets done, but ICANN also needs leaders who will promote the public interest. > > Adam > > > > > >> Hi George, >> >> All well and good. I have only advised people to make sure they knew what they were getting into. >> >> I find it interesting to now know that the Corporate Secretary, also an ICANN legal staff employee, is informed of all of the private information obtained. In the past, I was told no one from ICANN staff saw any of it. Now we know it is at least nobody - 1 see it. What about the rest of his staff, also ICANN employees? Anyone else? The opacity of this process, consistent with ICANN's culture of secrecy, makes the entire chain of custody for the private information very suspect. >> >> Note, I agree with the need for due diligence when if comes to Board members who have fiduciary responsibility. I do not agree with the ICANN Staff being responsible for it or having access to this information. >> >> As for the arduous process, I was not referring to the due diligence per se. That is just a simple form where you sign away your privacy rights, and I have signed it several times. I am referring to the application process and the long forms required of one's references. And then the long wait in the dark while the process unwinds with the only news one gets being the rumors that always leak. I encourage people to know what they are getting involved in. >> >> I encourage people to consider the nomcom process, but I warn them to make sure they know what they are getting into first. But I mostly ask them to consider getting involved in the give and take of ICANN's working group process where the work is actually done. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 16 Dec 2010, at 10:52, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> I would respectfully disagree with Avri's reaction to the privacy implications of the degree of due diligence that ICANN applies to selected nominees for the positions to be filled by the Nominating Committee. I speak from my experience as Chair of the Nominating Committee in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and I doubt that the due diligence process has changed significantly since that time. >>> >>> Being on the Board of a Corporation comes with a serious fiduciary responsibility for its proper fiscal management. Corporations must perform adequate due diligence on prospective Directors. We have all seen news reports of people who claimed non-existent degrees, or worse, licenses to practice medicine. It's important to ensure that there is an adequate understanding of the backgrounds of people to whom Directorships are offered. A lesser degree of due diligence is appropriate for membership on the Councils of the Supporting organizations. >>> >>> I have executed due diligence processes for the NomCom for three years. With one exception that required full discussion, only I and the Corporation Secretary have been privy to the results. Further, I have gone through the due diligence process myself, and I found it neither objectionably invasive nor uncomfortable. >>> >>> Bottom line: if you are interested in ICANN leadership positions, I would encourage you to apply, and to consider the due diligence process an understandable and necessary part of the selection process. >>> >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> At 8:58 AM -0500 12/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> On 16 Dec 2010, at 07:12, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>>>> http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, this >>>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Think carefully before you get involved in the the ICANN nomcom process. Make sure you understand the incredible degree of privacy you will have to give up to ICANN and its hired investigators before going through a very long and arduous process that is likely to leave you, and those you ask for references, feeling very burned. >>>> >>>> It is not that I recommend against getting involved, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved in the working groups and other efforts that are open to all. I just recommend caution when getting involved with its Nomcom - get a full picture first of what they will ask of you, especially if you are chosen. And make sure you are comfortable with the role of the ICANN staff, the access they (especially their legal department) may or may not have with the information their investigators find and the degree of guarantee you are given on the protection of your privacy. >>>> >>>> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 09:55:38 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:55:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F90@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Keep up good work Izumi, I agree Chair's proposal is acceptable if not perfect, but workable. When/if you get to speak: ask if all government reps opposing would consent to pose for a group photo after the meeting, since cs wishes to help them become (in-)famous ; ) Seriously: state that the Chair's proposal is acceptable to CS, anything less and CS will not participate, although governments are welcome to talk to themselves for as long as they wish. It would be easy - relatively - for CS, tech and biz communities to just do our own report on IGF improvement, with an instant virtual distributed WG. Govts could be accorded observer status if CS, biz & tech communities...choose ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Philippines Don’t limit the numbers of stakeholders to participate, but WG be limited to governments. Portugal Need to better understand your proposal. WG – government plus stakeholders? Chair Both governments plus stakeholders, with no difference. Portugal Then I think it’s a good proposal. Sri Lanka Civil society can have same status as governments Malaysia Echo with Phillipines and Sri Lanka We should not limit number of stakeholders to participate, and WG be only by governments. Cuba Same as Ph, Sri Lanka Chile Support this proposal Members can change the rules of procedure. USG We think this proposal is most worthy. Thank the modality, good. We associate with all who are in favor of this proposal. India We must express our surprise to the proposal. In the morning, it was abundantly clear, putting stakeholders in same footing is not acceptable and now allowed by current procedure. We don’t think procedure can be changed. 5 for Academic and technical community, 5 for civil society and 5 for private sector. But Tunis Agenda includes governments, civil society and private sector, and Intergovermental organizations, where are they? Chair – I did mention that. In any case, we align with Malaysia.. Chair – I did include IGOs. Mozambique It’s a good proposal. Iran Don't accept. South Africa surprising - this is advisory to Chair - not our understanding. This is CSTD WG, not comfortable with Chair's proposal, Academic and Civil society fall under one stakeholder. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 09:57:13 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:57:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Izumi, Chair seems to go in the right direction : Group OF the Chair, 15 non-governmental. Still not precise regarding governmental participation. Cannot (and probably should not) be limited to host countries. In any case, Kenya should be included as upcoming host. I guess that 10 govts (2 per geographic regions) plus the (6) hosts could be an ideal situation. Would make 16 govts, 15 non-govts and, I suppose, 3 to 5 intergovernmental organizations. Let's see how it pans out. Still some fight ahead. Best Bertrand On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. > > izumi > > > 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : > > Hi, > > > > How many government members in the WG? > > > > a. > > > > > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >> After Lunch > >> > >> Chair > >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. > >> As chair I listened carefully. > >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. > >> Proposal for consideration > >> > >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. > >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community > >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. > >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select > >> representatives to join the member states of WG. > >> > >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, > >> WG has the limited duration. > >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. > >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 17 09:56:30 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:56:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 23:29:21 on Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >CS, Private Sector and Academic and Technical Community 5+5+5 is 15. Is that Private Sector and Academic with 5, or Academic and Technical? -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 10:02:46 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:32:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Hello, On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Izumi, > > Chair seems to go in the right direction : Group OF the Chair, 15 > non-governmental. > > Still not precise regarding governmental participation. Cannot (and > probably should not) be limited to host countries. In any case, Kenya should > be included as upcoming host. > > I guess that 10 govts (2 per geographic regions) plus the (6) hosts could > be an ideal situation. Would make 16 govts, 15 non-govts and, I suppose, 3 > to 5 intergovernmental organizations. > It would still be 1 Government : 1 AllOtherStakeholders. Shouldn't it be 1Government:1CivilSociety:1Business:1InternationalOrganization? May not be agreeable under the circumstances, but just a thought. Sivasubramanian M > > Let's see how it pans out. Still some fight ahead. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : >> > Hi, >> > >> > How many government members in the WG? >> > >> > a. >> > >> > >> > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> > >> >> After Lunch >> >> >> >> Chair >> >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. >> >> As chair I listened carefully. >> >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. >> >> Proposal for consideration >> >> >> >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. >> >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community >> >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. >> >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select >> >> representatives to join the member states of WG. >> >> >> >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, >> >> WG has the limited duration. >> >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. >> >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 10:04:10 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:04:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Mexico Thank you. We support this proposal. Canada Still member states have more than 50%, but it’s a good compromise and we would support. Argentina Support your proposal UK Support Brazil We had lunch in wrong place. We had to compromise – to combine the respect of UN rules and participation of stakeholders. I am impressed with some colleagues – trying to find compromise two days ago. Discussion this afternoon did not touch other important points, Representation of stakeholders from developing countries I like to urge colleagues to have final consensus this afternoon. Chair Clarification Chair’s proposal is to have consensus on the formula, and then equal representation of developing and developed in any composition. On UN rules, we have to be innovative to allow stakeholder and member states. China China is of the same opinion of Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Iran …. Expressed. Just that. Thank you. Tunisia Legitimate concerne of preserving the Your proposal is fine – needs to be a little bit strengthened by a kind of Chapeau to guarantee – that this process – there is no equal status between member states and other stakeholders “while recognize that other stakeholders are not treated on equal footing” then add “participation of stakeholders will be on advisory basis” just to give insurance that there be no equal (political) status. Finland Join the countries in support of the proposal. Echo Canada. Egypt Stress 1) issue of improving IGF came from participants of IGF in Egypt in 2009 CSTD – ECOSOC- by establishing WG 2) Principles of openness and inclusiveness is important 3) Still concerned with the modalities of this group 4) The more we look the numbers, we go again into controversial nature – turning it into advisory one – we consider it clearly CSTD WG However, I want to propose a different proposal We better focus on Mandate of IGF in para 72 – the language goes to ECOSOC - to establish Multistakeholder Task Forces (of three or four) - each with mandate, come-up with analysis, improve where needed - in bottom-up approach - there will be first reading of different reports in open consultation, then second reading that focus on final editing and then, submitted to CSTD - this is to avoid going on status problem of composition Chair Egypt – you were not listening to my correction – it is not advisory, but WG of Chair India We share the concern of delegations expressed In the morning consensus be developing but we need to come with innovative model of taking stakeholders but also respect UN rules Chair’s proposal put it back into Ground zero – because putting all stakeholders to Welcome to Tunisia and Egypt comments - expressed – unless we can discuss these models, we cannot reach – for next 2 hours be wasted. Surprised at the interpretation of ECOSOC - it is CSTD WG. Chair tasked the Vice Chair – that current chair wrote – wrote to establish the CSTD WG, questionnaire calling it as CSTD WG. Formal process already completed. Involve the work of WGs, invitees of the Chair, but not performing the same roles of CSTD members, or put them into observers, or take Tunisian or Egyptian proposals. Chair We are open – I don’t think Chair is going back to zero. When we return – I make some proposition – you may agree or disagree with the Chair If we have majority that stakeholders be observers – then we have to call for vote. Comments – for modalities of all stakeholders So that we can conclude this meeting Portugal Ask Para 18 of Second committee – to invite the Chair of CSTD, but not CSTD. So what is going here, I don’t understand. Thank you Chair, for inviting CSTD members, because you didn’t have to – and you can invite both member states and all other stakeholders – in order to submit to the CSTD These are the rules of ECOSOC. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 10:05:30 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:05:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PS - 5 Academic and Tech - 5. izumi 2010/12/17 Roland Perry : > In message , > at 23:29:21 on Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes > >>CS, Private Sector and Academic and Technical Community 5+5+5 is 15. > > Is that Private Sector and Academic with 5, or Academic and Technical? > -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 10:06:18 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:06:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Siva, Really trying to rock the boat, right :-)) WGIG balance is the upper bar, I'm afraid. would already be an achievement for this CSTD Chair group, given where we started. Best B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Izumi, >> >> Chair seems to go in the right direction : Group OF the Chair, 15 >> non-governmental. >> >> Still not precise regarding governmental participation. Cannot (and >> probably should not) be limited to host countries. In any case, Kenya should >> be included as upcoming host. >> >> I guess that 10 govts (2 per geographic regions) plus the (6) hosts could >> be an ideal situation. Would make 16 govts, 15 non-govts and, I suppose, 3 >> to 5 intergovernmental organizations. >> > > It would still be 1 Government : 1 AllOtherStakeholders. Shouldn't it be > 1Government:1CivilSociety:1Business:1InternationalOrganization? May not be > agreeable under the circumstances, but just a thought. > > Sivasubramanian M > > >> >> Let's see how it pans out. Still some fight ahead. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > How many government members in the WG? >>> > >>> > a. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> > >>> >> After Lunch >>> >> >>> >> Chair >>> >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. >>> >> As chair I listened carefully. >>> >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. >>> >> Proposal for consideration >>> >> >>> >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. >>> >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community >>> >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. >>> >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select >>> >> representatives to join the member states of WG. >>> >> >>> >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, >>> >> WG has the limited duration. >>> >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. >>> >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> * * * * * >>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> www.anr.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 17 10:08:35 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:08:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 00:05:30 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >Academic and Tech - 5. A novel combination. What entity would be the gatekeeper for these five seats? -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 10:10:26 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:40:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Bertrand, On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Siva, > > Really trying to rock the boat, right :-)) > > WGIG balance is the upper bar, I'm afraid. would already be an achievement > for this CSTD Chair group, given where we started. > Yes Indeed. It is quite an achievement, way ahead from the situation whereby we were to have a Governments Only group. :) I was merely making an observation about the ideal mutli-stakeholder constitution in the long term, without being afraid to dream. > Best > > B. > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < >> bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Izumi, >>> >>> Chair seems to go in the right direction : Group OF the Chair, 15 >>> non-governmental. >>> >>> Still not precise regarding governmental participation. Cannot (and >>> probably should not) be limited to host countries. In any case, Kenya should >>> be included as upcoming host. >>> >>> I guess that 10 govts (2 per geographic regions) plus the (6) hosts could >>> be an ideal situation. Would make 16 govts, 15 non-govts and, I suppose, 3 >>> to 5 intergovernmental organizations. >>> >> >> It would still be 1 Government : 1 AllOtherStakeholders. Shouldn't it be >> 1Government:1CivilSociety:1Business:1InternationalOrganization? May not be >> agreeable under the circumstances, but just a thought. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >>> >>> Let's see how it pans out. Still some fight ahead. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > How many government members in the WG? >>>> > >>>> > a. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> After Lunch >>>> >> >>>> >> Chair >>>> >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. >>>> >> As chair I listened carefully. >>>> >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. >>>> >> Proposal for consideration >>>> >> >>>> >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. >>>> >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community >>>> >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. >>>> >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select >>>> >> representatives to join the member states of WG. >>>> >> >>>> >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, >>>> >> WG has the limited duration. >>>> >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. >>>> >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> Japan >>>> * * * * * >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>>> www.anr.org >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >>> Saint Exupéry >>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 10:13:22 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:13:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Wait - it is not reaching any piece of consensus (yet). Hard to imagine many developing countries to accept this as such. I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. izumi 2010/12/18 Sivasubramanian M : > Dear Bertrand, > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: >> >> Hi Siva, >> Really trying to rock the boat, right :-)) >> WGIG balance is the upper bar, I'm afraid. would already be an achievement >> for this CSTD Chair group, given where we started. > > Yes Indeed. It is quite an achievement, way ahead from the situation whereby > we were to have a Governments Only group. :) I was merely making an > observation about the ideal mutli-stakeholder constitution in the long term, > without being afraid to dream. >> >> Best >> B. >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 10:14:05 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:14:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: It is all so absurd, we are spending the whole afternoon debating whether it's a working group of the CSTD, a working group of the chair, or an advisory group to the chair. Exactly the kind of process one would want making decisions about the IGF. What's especially amazing is some of the bald faced rhetorical games, like governments declaring there was consensus this morning that the chair is now departing from, when there clearly was no such consensus. On Dec 17, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Izumi, > > Chair seems to go in the right direction : Group OF the Chair, 15 non-governmental. > > Still not precise regarding governmental participation. Cannot (and probably should not) be limited to host countries. In any case, Kenya should be included as upcoming host. > > I guess that 10 govts (2 per geographic regions) plus the (6) hosts could be an ideal situation. Would make 16 govts, 15 non-govts and, I suppose, 3 to 5 intergovernmental organizations. > > Let's see how it pans out. Still some fight ahead. > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. > > izumi > > > 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : > > Hi, > > > > How many government members in the WG? > > > > a. > > > > > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >> After Lunch > >> > >> Chair > >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. > >> As chair I listened carefully. > >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. > >> Proposal for consideration > >> > >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. > >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community > >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. > >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select > >> representatives to join the member states of WG. > >> > >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, > >> WG has the limited duration. > >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. > >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 10:16:47 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:16:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: South Africa To reiterate our position: We are confused. On Dec 6, WG is established. The only remaining task is how to engage other stakeholders. In the morning we had agreement. But now we have no agreement. Back to zero – we agree with India. We encourage Chair to rethink your proposal. Chair Now Madam Chair will rethink the proposal to go forward. The resolution the Chair of WG to establish in an open and inclusive manner a working group which would compile and seek for inputs for all member states and other stakeholders - inline with Tunis Agenda. Are we on consensus on this? Philippines This is WG of commission, but not of Chair. If this is WG of Chair, the Chair can do anything Chair Therefore, the WG is of CSTD? That work is concluded? EU Mandate given – by ECOSOC – for the Chair to setup such group. We don’t have to decide – whether in the framework of CSTD or not… The only thing which counts is para 30 of ECOSOC resolution US We are in interesting phase of conversation. I would disagree – who said we are drifted from morning. Making formula of practical working group. It is the CSTD working Group. I don’t think we will go back. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 10:17:18 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:17:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Chair added IGOs, no numbers... > > The atmosphere of the room is all European and North Americans are > supporting this Chair's proposal.  Asking more, strongly, does not seem > to be the good strategy, that seems to be correct. 20 vs 15 vs x (for IGOs) isn't parity, but it's: A) much better that 20 - nil B) probably the best deal we can get. > > In any case, this will not be accepted by all. fer sure! -- 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 avri at acm.org Fri Dec 17 10:20:46 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:20:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: <6706F67C-B17D-4998-972D-EFB70E0352A6@acm.org> Hi, I agree with Siva in principle I recommend an attitude that WGIG is the lowest possible bar. At this point I agree we should settle for WGIG levels. but remember with IGO's having a free UN pass to all meeting alwasy and everywhere, the WGIG bar is far lower than it looks. a. On 17 Dec 2010, at 10:06, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Siva, > > Really trying to rock the boat, right :-)) > > WGIG balance is the upper bar, I'm afraid. would already be an achievement for this CSTD Chair group, given where we started. > > Best > > B. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Izumi, > > Chair seems to go in the right direction : Group OF the Chair, 15 non-governmental. > > Still not precise regarding governmental participation. Cannot (and probably should not) be limited to host countries. In any case, Kenya should be included as upcoming host. > > I guess that 10 govts (2 per geographic regions) plus the (6) hosts could be an ideal situation. Would make 16 govts, 15 non-govts and, I suppose, 3 to 5 intergovernmental organizations. > > It would still be 1 Government : 1 AllOtherStakeholders. Shouldn't it be 1Government:1CivilSociety:1Business:1InternationalOrganization? May not be agreeable under the circumstances, but just a thought. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Let's see how it pans out. Still some fight ahead. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. > > izumi > > > 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : > > Hi, > > > > How many government members in the WG? > > > > a. > > > > > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >> After Lunch > >> > >> Chair > >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. > >> As chair I listened carefully. > >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. > >> Proposal for consideration > >> > >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. > >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community > >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. > >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select > >> representatives to join the member states of WG. > >> > >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, > >> WG has the limited duration. > >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. > >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 10:25:43 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:25:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: [interesting proposal came from UK, Iran... in addition to Tunisia] Chile Most important is outcome. The more we restrict, the outcome is also restricted. In this case, Civil society and different modality – in Tunis agenda – to have cross-cutting participation – everyone on equal footing. Greece On Egypt proposal (?) 22 and other stakeholders reports – go refinement – then go to governmental approval then goes to CSTD I think it was interesting idea. Switzerland Closer to agreement – hopefully. Urge people not to go back to interpretations of text. My delegation had clearly understood – 100% copy and paste of text created WGIG. Go forward with the solution we have now. We are ready to join. If that does not fly, then join Greece to consider proposal from Egypt South Africa Support proposal from Egypt UK Tunisian proposal, interesting Just quote ECOSOC text language – Chair – to invite members - not go into status, CSTD WG or not, Chile comment – outcome is important We should have consolidated MSH framework If we fragment, we have the risk Focused WG, language taking ECOSOC language as Chapeau Iran We can move on – to resolve this issue. Not focus on some difference, but build on common grounds. That’s how we can move, on the basis of some proposals. I agree with what UK said, but with one addition – acceptable to all of us. “in conformity of all the rules and regulations of ECOSOC, these stakeholders are invited” ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 10:25:19 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:25:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Izumi, *1) The fundamental question *(to be repeated as much as needed) >From the discussion this morning, the whole discussion boils down to *a very simple question* : is the intended group a WG of the CSTD or a WG convened by the Chair of the CSTD ? Because the situation is as follows : - In the first case, Iran and others can claim that UN (or at least CSTD) rules should apply. - In the second case, there is much more flexibility in composing the group, as the relevant precedent is the MS WGIG which was convened by the UN Secretary General (and was not a UN Group per se). The answer to this simple question is however *TOTALLY UNAMBIGUOUS*. Both the ECOSOC and UN GA resolutions say in plain terms : *"Invites **the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group..."* This was clearly *part of the deal in May* when the CSTD draft was produced. Using the mechanism of the Chair as convenor (and not the CSTD itself) and the formulation "*in an open and inclusive manner*" were voluntary quotes from the paragraph of the Geneva Declaration of Principles establishing the WGIG : *"We ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005"* *2) The hypocrisy* If it was possible, without contravening the UN rules, to establish a multi-stakeholder WGIG in 2004, even before the principle of multi-stakeholderism was formally established in Tunis documents, how on earth can one pretend that this is not possible and contrary to UN rules six years later ? Iran and other countries, such as South Africa and China, were active - and forceful - participants in the May meeting. they cannot pretend they did not know what the resolution meant - this is why they were so hard to convince. Nonetheless, they accepted this formulation in the CSTD (by consensus), then in ECOSOC (by consensus) and then again in the UN GA (by consensus). For these actors, using the obvious mistake by the Vice-Chair (who let the formulation "Working Group of the CSTD" become the item title) to retract now is DISINGENUOUS at best, and in the worst case, just illustrate how little credit should be given to agreed documents in the UN and to the word of some governmental representatives. Actors from CS, the private sector and countries (mostly EU, US and a few others, including Brazil in some respect) who DO honor their word and accept, for instance, to participate in the other process (the enhanced cooperation consultations) they did not initially want are penalized for their fairness. *Bottom line* : the question of whether this is a Group of the Chair or a CSTD Group is *THE* defining question. Must be hammered down until finally resolved, based on the text. Everything flows from there. Best B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Drake William < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > It is all so absurd, we are spending the whole afternoon debating whether > it's a working group of the CSTD, a working group of the chair, or an > advisory group to the chair. > > Exactly the kind of process one would want making decisions about the IGF. > > What's especially amazing is some of the bald faced rhetorical games, like > governments declaring there was consensus this morning that the chair is now > departing from, when there clearly was no such consensus. > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Dec 17 10:28:12 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:28:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: <3AE97FAF-D6F2-4283-8F86-5FCFA8BB87A0@graduateinstitute.ch> We are leaking support and maybe going backwards. Greece, Switzerland, Austria have all said well if G77 doesn't like have SGs as members, maybe we can compromise on the Egyptian proposal (which is purely intergovernmental) Odd strategic positionings On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > [interesting proposal came from UK, Iran... in addition to Tunisia] > > > Chile > Most important is outcome. > The more we restrict, the outcome is also restricted. > In this case, Civil society and different modality – in Tunis agenda – > to have cross-cutting participation – everyone on equal footing. > > Greece > > On Egypt proposal (?) > 22 and other stakeholders > reports – go refinement – then go to governmental approval > then goes to CSTD > I think it was interesting idea. > > Switzerland > Closer to agreement – hopefully. > Urge people not to go back to interpretations of text. > My delegation had clearly understood – 100% copy and paste of text created WGIG. > Go forward with the solution we have now. > We are ready to join. > If that does not fly, then join Greece to consider proposal from Egypt > > South Africa > Support proposal from Egypt > > UK > Tunisian proposal, interesting > Just quote ECOSOC text language – > Chair – to invite members - not go into status, CSTD WG or not, > Chile comment – outcome is important > We should have consolidated MSH framework > If we fragment, we have the risk > Focused WG, language taking ECOSOC language as Chapeau > > Iran > We can move on – to resolve this issue. > Not focus on some difference, but build on common grounds. > That’s how we can move, on the basis of some proposals. > I agree with what UK said, but with one addition – acceptable to all of us. > “in conformity of all the rules and regulations of ECOSOC, these > stakeholders are invited” > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.williamdrake.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 10:31:55 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:31:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <6706F67C-B17D-4998-972D-EFB70E0352A6@acm.org> References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> <6706F67C-B17D-4998-972D-EFB70E0352A6@acm.org> Message-ID: Reading your e-mails like a thriller microblogging.... Wanting to kick things around me... On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Siva in principle > > I recommend an attitude that WGIG is the lowest possible bar. > > At this point I agree we should settle for WGIG levels. but remember with > IGO's having a free UN pass to all meeting alwasy and everywhere, the WGIG > bar is far lower than it looks. > > a. > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 10:06, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > > Hi Siva, > > > > Really trying to rock the boat, right :-)) > > > > WGIG balance is the upper bar, I'm afraid. would already be an > achievement for this CSTD Chair group, given where we started. > > > > Best > > > > B. > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > > Izumi, > > > > Chair seems to go in the right direction : Group OF the Chair, 15 > non-governmental. > > > > Still not precise regarding governmental participation. Cannot (and > probably should not) be limited to host countries. In any case, Kenya should > be included as upcoming host. > > > > I guess that 10 govts (2 per geographic regions) plus the (6) hosts could > be an ideal situation. Would make 16 govts, 15 non-govts and, I suppose, 3 > to 5 intergovernmental organizations. > > > > It would still be 1 Government : 1 AllOtherStakeholders. Shouldn't it be > 1Government:1CivilSociety:1Business:1InternationalOrganization? May not be > agreeable under the circumstances, but just a thought. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > Let's see how it pans out. Still some fight ahead. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > 3 times 5 = 15, plus 5 host countries = 20. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2010/12/17 Avri Doria : > > > Hi, > > > > > > How many government members in the WG? > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > > > >> After Lunch > > >> > > >> Chair > > >> Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. > > >> As chair I listened carefully. > > >> Commonly agreed that all stakeholder should be inclusive for the WG. > > >> Proposal for consideration > > >> > > >> We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. > > >> From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community > > >> 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. > > >> The leadership of these organizations will be able to select > > >> representatives to join the member states of WG. > > >> > > >> WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, > > >> WG has the limited duration. > > >> WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. > > >> Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 17 10:37:16 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:37:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? -- 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 jcancio at mityc.es Fri Dec 17 10:39:40 2010 From: jcancio at mityc.es (Cancio Melia, Jorge) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:39:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Message-ID: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351BB97DA9@SRVC252.mityc.age> Let me support Bertrand's words as one of those who negotiated the May CSTD Resolution. Jorge --- Enviado desde PDA ________________________________ De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Drake William Enviado: Fri Dec 17 16:25:19 2010 Asunto: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Izumi, 1) The fundamental question (to be repeated as much as needed) From the discussion this morning, the whole discussion boils down to a very simple question : is the intended group a WG of the CSTD or a WG convened by the Chair of the CSTD ? Because the situation is as follows : * In the first case, Iran and others can claim that UN (or at least CSTD) rules should apply. * In the second case, there is much more flexibility in composing the group, as the relevant precedent is the MS WGIG which was convened by the UN Secretary General (and was not a UN Group per se). The answer to this simple question is however TOTALLY UNAMBIGUOUS. Both the ECOSOC and UN GA resolutions say in plain terms : "Invites the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group..." This was clearly part of the deal in May when the CSTD draft was produced. Using the mechanism of the Chair as convenor (and not the CSTD itself) and the formulation "in an open and inclusive manner" were voluntary quotes from the paragraph of the Geneva Declaration of Principles establishing the WGIG : "We ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005" 2) The hypocrisy If it was possible, without contravening the UN rules, to establish a multi-stakeholder WGIG in 2004, even before the principle of multi-stakeholderism was formally established in Tunis documents, how on earth can one pretend that this is not possible and contrary to UN rules six years later ? Iran and other countries, such as South Africa and China, were active - and forceful - participants in the May meeting. they cannot pretend they did not know what the resolution meant - this is why they were so hard to convince. Nonetheless, they accepted this formulation in the CSTD (by consensus), then in ECOSOC (by consensus) and then again in the UN GA (by consensus). For these actors, using the obvious mistake by the Vice-Chair (who let the formulation "Working Group of the CSTD" become the item title) to retract now is DISINGENUOUS at best, and in the worst case, just illustrate how little credit should be given to agreed documents in the UN and to the word of some governmental representatives. Actors from CS, the private sector and countries (mostly EU, US and a few others, including Brazil in some respect) who DO honor their word and accept, for instance, to participate in the other process (the enhanced cooperation consultations) they did not initially want are penalized for their fairness. Bottom line : the question of whether this is a Group of the Chair or a CSTD Group is THE defining question. Must be hammered down until finally resolved, based on the text. Everything flows from there. Best B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Drake William > wrote: It is all so absurd, we are spending the whole afternoon debating whether it's a working group of the CSTD, a working group of the chair, or an advisory group to the chair. Exactly the kind of process one would want making decisions about the IGF. What's especially amazing is some of the bald faced rhetorical games, like governments declaring there was consensus this morning that the chair is now departing from, when there clearly was no such consensus. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 10:48:51 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:48:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351BB97DA9@SRVC252.mityc.age> References: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351BB97DA9@SRVC252.mityc.age> Message-ID: Austria I agree that nothing is defined until everything is defined. Second proposal – Egypt/Greece to discuss EU? “Pursue the rules and regulations” in French – it leads open to what is applied, but not violate these rules, or vaguer reference to these rules Council of Europe We have invested considerably to IGF. To have common platform bring stakeholders in equal footing IGC – called by Chair, even when I did not request for the floor. I mentioned equal amount of frustration is fine. Our colleagues were expressing some frustration, but the Chair’s proposal is in the good direction. Chair We ask India and ??? to come up with amendment to my proposal – in15 minutes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 10:59:22 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:59:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: First, correction - it was Tunisia and UK to come up with amendments, not India. Now, Bertrand, I largely agree to what you wrote below, or what you wrote yesterday(?) to my draft. BUT, it also will be fed to CSTD which will make recommendation to ECOSOC. I mean the outcome - the WG report. I don't think they will come up with workable solution soon. But let's see. And many thanks for "watching" this live. I really want the live webcam. And remote participation from you guys directly to the meeting. But, given the intense interactions among governments, it is quite difficult to take the floor. I was quite surprised that IGC was nominated by the Chair - that has not happened to any other stakeholders. But your online remarks have been quite helpful for me to compose what to be said spontaneously. izumi 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Izumi, > 1) The fundamental question (to be repeated as much as needed) > From the discussion this morning, the whole discussion boils down to a very > simple question : is the intended group a WG of the CSTD or a WG convened by > the Chair of the CSTD ? Because the situation is as follows : > > In the first case, Iran and others can claim that UN (or at least CSTD) > rules should apply. > In the second case, there is much more flexibility in composing the group, > as the relevant precedent is the MS WGIG which was convened by the UN > Secretary General (and was not a UN Group per se). > > The answer to this simple question is however TOTALLY UNAMBIGUOUS. Both the > ECOSOC and UN GA resolutions say in plain terms : > > "Invites the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for > Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working > group..." > > > This was clearly part of the deal in May when the CSTD draft was produced. > Using the mechanism of the Chair as convenor (and not the CSTD itself) and > the formulation "in an open and inclusive manner" were voluntary quotes from > the paragraph of the Geneva Declaration of Principles establishing the WGIG > : > > "We ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to set up a working > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures > a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the > private sector and civil society from both developing and developed > countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international > organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as > appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005" > > 2) The hypocrisy > If it was possible, without contravening the UN rules, to establish a > multi-stakeholder WGIG in 2004, even before the principle of > multi-stakeholderism was formally established in Tunis documents, how on > earth can one pretend that this is not possible and contrary to UN rules six > years later ? > Iran and other countries, such as South Africa and China, were active - and > forceful - participants in the May meeting. they cannot pretend they did not > know what the resolution meant - this is why they were so hard to convince. > Nonetheless, they accepted this formulation in the CSTD (by consensus), then > in ECOSOC (by consensus) and then again in the UN GA (by consensus). > For these actors, using the obvious mistake by the Vice-Chair (who let the > formulation "Working Group of the CSTD" become the item title) to retract > now is DISINGENUOUS at best, and in the worst case, just illustrate how > little credit should be given to agreed documents in the UN and to the word > of some governmental representatives. > Actors from CS, the private sector and countries (mostly EU, US and a few > others, including Brazil in some respect) who DO honor their word and > accept, for instance, to participate in the other process (the enhanced > cooperation consultations) they did not initially want are penalized for > their fairness. > Bottom line : the question of whether this is a Group of the Chair or a CSTD > Group is THE defining question. Must be hammered down until finally > resolved, based on the text. Everything flows from there. > Best > B. > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Drake William > wrote: >> >> It is all so absurd, we are spending the whole afternoon debating whether >> it's a working group of the CSTD, a working group of the chair, or an >> advisory group to the chair. >> Exactly the kind of process one would want making decisions about the IGF. >> What's especially amazing is some of the bald faced rhetorical games, like >> governments declaring there was consensus this morning that the chair is now >> departing from, when there clearly was no such consensus. >> > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 11:10:08 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:10:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: 17:00 Chair I will invite Tunisia Tunisia It was really a hard task. Ask UK to read the text. UK – proposal Chapeau to Chair’s proposal “The Chair of CSTD decides on an exceptional basis and without prejudice to the rules and the procedure of the function of the commission and the ECOSOC , to establish the Working Group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and on all of the stakeholders on improvement of IGF - in open and inclusive manner throughout the process, composed the following” Iran “Following stakeholders are invited by the Chair of CSTD to participate in the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvement, in accordance with the established rules of procedure of the ECOSOC and the CSTD. It would be 2 from Private Sector, 2 from Civil Society, 2 from IGOs and 2 from International Organizations and also we - pursuant to CSTD decision, it was agreed that maximum possible assistant are extended to the participation of governments and civil society entities for participation for balanced participation of the stakeholders in the working group.” -- While appreciating the proposal from UK and Tunisia, that cannot be accepted - since we are establishing the WG which also not follow UN rules on exceptional basis – we are not in a position on making decision on exceptional case – we can make exception in CSTD or ECOSOC rules. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 11:15:09 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:15:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <1D1DB3E4-7FB5-4A41-A480-38B5307A7D61@acm.org> Message-ID: Chile To Tunisia and UK, it is a good compromise. Chair – to Iran, 2+2+2+2 is a little limited in numbers. Proposal is just to say balanced participation from developing and developed countries Iran 1 from developing and 1 from developed Better for more efficiency with 30, but we can revisit the numbers. Chair Thank you. I think 5 from private sector, 5 from civil society, 5 from IGO, 5 from international organization and consultation should be continuous – when it’s established I want to the consensus and then move forward to the Chair US O really think we had the great deal for UK/Tunisia and Iran I am bit confused where we stand – we want clarification. We still reaffirm your original proposal of 5 5 5 Why for IGO Not acceptable of 2 from PS and CS Chair I think the text is almost same – only difference is number: 2 2 2 2 2 [Confused -- still] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 11:21:22 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:21:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351BB97DA9@SRVC252.mityc.age> Message-ID: Izumi, not sure what the Egyptian proposal is. If this means that CSTD (in its governmental format) has to agree on the report, I think it is not in contradiction with the ECOSOC/UNGA resolutions : (The WG) would make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Commission at its fourteenth session in 2011, in a report that would constitute an input from the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, should the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended. * * The text seem to imply that the report is just forwarded by the CSTD to the ECOSOC. If a compromise is to allow the CSTD to formally endorse the report before it is sent, this could be acceptable. BUT - and this is a great but - this does not mean that the CSTD should be allowed to cherry-pick some parts and leave others, or worse, that some direct editing could be made to change the content before the report is forwarded. Having the CSTD - in its intergovernmental format - voting yes or no on the report is potentially acceptable, but not editing. In any case, not only can governments members of the WG make their voice heard during the drafting, but ultimately, governments will have the right to include what they want in the ECOSOC and UNGA ultimate resolutions, like they did with the WGIG report recommendations when they were integrated in the Tunis documents. This is an opportunity to establish a fundamental principle of the multi-stakeholder approach : the difference between decision-shaping and decision-making : a MS group does not have final decision-making power; but any intergovernmental body it directly reports to should not have the power to pick and choose, but mainly to endorse or reject. The outcome is afterwards food for thought in the next stages. So, in this case, the Chair convenes a MS group. The group produces a report, that is aknowledged by the CSTD and forwarded - as is - to the ECOSOC and UNGA : the resolutions say "the report will constitute and input from CSTD" (ie there can be other inputs). CSTD can, on this basis, produce a draft resolution that incorporates all or parts of the report, but it is a separate process and the group report should be available, untouched, for the ECOSOC and UNGA discussions - even if the draft resolution only retains some elements. My two cents. let's see what comes next. Best B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Austria > I agree that nothing is defined until everything is defined. > Second proposal – Egypt/Greece to discuss > > EU? > “Pursue the rules and regulations” in French – it leads open to what > is applied, but not violate these rules, or vaguer reference to these > rules > > Council of Europe > We have invested considerably to IGF. > To have common platform bring stakeholders in equal footing > > > IGC – called by Chair, even when I did not request for the floor. > I mentioned equal amount of frustration is fine. > Our colleagues were expressing some frustration, but the Chair’s > proposal is in the good direction. > > Chair > We ask India and ??? to come up with amendment to my proposal – in15 > minutes. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Dec 17 11:29:30 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:29:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351BB97DA9@SRVC252.mityc.age> Message-ID: <7BCCC554-BD04-4BBC-8B0C-CBE98F05F666@graduateinstitute.ch> On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > not sure what the Egyptian proposal is. Intergovernmental WG "as established this morning" plus open and participatory work teams involving nongovernmentals that take pieces of the problem and write inputs that go back to the WG for discussion before all views are aggregated and forwarded to CSTD, more or less. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 11:35:32 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:35:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <7BCCC554-BD04-4BBC-8B0C-CBE98F05F666@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351BB97DA9@SRVC252.mityc.age> <7BCCC554-BD04-4BBC-8B0C-CBE98F05F666@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: [The show goes on] - after the following, the secretariat is going to compile two proposals and put them onto the screen - five minutes break. Canada, still confused – and like the UK/Tunisia proposal Chair Proposal on the floor is what UK read. My proposal of 5+5+5+ 5 IGO is still there Philippines Seek for clarification We can go along with proposal of Iran, but not with UK/Tunisia India Support the Iranian proposal Re numbers – there has to be balance between states and other stakeholders 3+3+3+3 We will have difficulty with UK proposal – Stakeholders on equal footing on Clarify this is the WG of the Chair But the report will be that of CSTD APC Express concern the numbering proposal, from Iran and India We fail to understand how to include developing countries with that numbers I do support the Iran to support the developing countries participation Status of WG and output – it appears Two resolutions in General Assembly and ECOSOC WG Output is the input to CSTD, and then make recommendations to CSTD Para 18 of second committee reads as: Welcomes ECOSOC resolution para 30 to invite Chair – South Africa We support proposal by Iran on Chapeau WG 20+2 - already established We can increase the numbers into 2, but not accept the language of UK proposal There should be the distinction – between government and other stakeholders and Iran proposal captures Chair Go back to 5+5+5 plus IGO I invite UK to polish up UK Chair, I will invite UK to table resolution “The Chair of the CSTD decides on an exceptional basis and without prejudice to the rules of the procedure of the function of the commission and the ECOSOC, to establish the Working Group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and all of the stakeholders on improvement of IGF, in open and inclusive manner throughout the process, composed the following” Chair Participation of non-governmental entities, civil society – for development At 19 July, ECOSOC calling 2006/42, on 28 July 2008, and resolution of 18 July 2008, in recognizing the need for meaningful participation and contributions for civil society, Madam Chair, trying to bring this meeting to consensus – I appeal to all of us – this morning and afternoon – to build the consensus and trust – that Chair decide on exceptional basis without prejudice The Chair of CSTD decides as a proposal, “The Chair of CSTD invites the following stakeholders on an exceptional basis without prejudice to the established rules of ECOSOC – to establish a Working Group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and all of the stakeholders on improvement of IGF 5 from CS, 5 from business, 5 from technical and academia and International organizations. Egypt I am confused with all proposals. Chair These will be in addition to governments Egypt Normally, at CSTD, those stakeholders are only allowed when invited by the Chair to speak? Is this the way? Chair Within the established rule of ECOSOC and CSTD Egypt If they are going to work with established rules, then no need to add? 105? Chair We have 20+ 2 and 15 plus International organization India I want to request if the proposal be read again Chair Proposals are almost identical – not much difference We need to compile two together ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 11:44:29 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:44:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD Message-ID: Brazilian speech, Dec 17th, morning session CSTD: QUOTE Brazil welcomes the way out we find today that is discussing ways of involving stakeholders but always respecting UN rules: Brazil also would like to play a constructive role in this, and we believe we could offer to your consideration Madam Chairperson, two suggestions regarding transparency and openess: - The meetings should also be fully committed to *openess: *each chair of each meetings of the working group may invite, for example, 5 speakers from each stakeholder group which are recognized in Tunis Agenda - civil society, business sector and international institutions; - each stakeholders present in each session of work could decide themselves who will be the five representatives, but they will take into account, whenever possible, the balanced participation of representatives from developing and developed countries, including those who are not already registered as observers in UN or ECOSOC; - The working group already defined by you, Madam Chairperson, will have meetings that are fully committed to *transparency – any states, or other stakeholders may attend the meetings.* In order to conclude Brazil would like to thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for all the consultations made about the establishment of this working group: in vilnius, in last november and december the 6th. You provided us an example of how dealing with a such a complex process in a transparent way, not in a black box approach" UNQUOTE -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Dec 17 11:50:19 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:50:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20884E76-4937-49DC-9894-A1FB8867F998@graduateinstitute.ch> Since I just finished sending Alvaro a reply on the same, I might as well share it. > Thanks Alvaro. I appreciate your intent to find a middle way, but being invited as a non-member of the WG to speak at a meeting isn't real multistakeholderism, isn't consistent with the Tunis Agenda, and isn't terribly attractive. I don't see why nongovernmental should help in such a scenario, personally. On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Brazilian speech, Dec 17th, morning session CSTD: > > QUOTE > Brazil welcomes the way out we find today that is discussing ways of involving stakeholders but always respecting UN rules: > Brazil also would like to play a constructive role in this, and we believe we could offer to your consideration Madam Chairperson, two suggestions regarding transparency and openess: > The meetings should also be fully committed to openess: each chair of each meetings of the working group may invite, for example, 5 speakers from each stakeholder group which are recognized in Tunis Agenda - civil society, business sector and international institutions; > each stakeholders present in each session of work could decide themselves who will be the five representatives, but they will take into account, whenever possible, the balanced participation of representatives from developing and developed countries, including those who are not already registered as observers in UN or ECOSOC; > The working group already defined by you, Madam Chairperson, will have meetings that are fully committed to transparency – any states, or other stakeholders may attend the meetings. > In order to conclude Brazil would like to thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for all the consultations made about the establishment of this working group: in vilnius, in last november and december the 6th. You provided us an example of how dealing with a such a complex process in a transparent way, not in a black box approach" > > UNQUOTE > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 11:54:02 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:54:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal for formulation by the Chair Message-ID: Proposal for formulation by the Chair. Hope this can help. "Without prejudice to the established rules of ECOSOC or the CSTD, the Chair of the CSTD, on an exceptional basis, invites 5 representatives from Civil society, 5 representatives from Business, 5 representatives of technical community and academia and 5 representatives from IGOs to participate, along with the 15 governments and 5 (6 to include Kenya) IGF hosts, in the Working Group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and all stakeholders on improvements to the IGF. The leadership of these organizations will be able to select representatives to join the member states in the WG." B. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:09:48 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:09:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD In-Reply-To: <20884E76-4937-49DC-9894-A1FB8867F998@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <802E25EAA619460DB9075B0430E194E6@userPC> Hmmm... Interesting... Clearly a difference in perception as to what the central issue is... Some (all?) governments seem to see it as a question of "transparency" and "openness", everyone else sees it as an issue of "seat at the table-ism". M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Drake William Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD Since I just finished sending Alvaro a reply on the same, I might as well share it. Thanks Alvaro. I appreciate your intent to find a middle way, but being invited as a non-member of the WG to speak at a meeting isn't real multistakeholderism, isn't consistent with the Tunis Agenda, and isn't terribly attractive. I don't see why nongovernmental should help in such a scenario, personally. On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Brazilian speech, Dec 17th, morning session CSTD: QUOTE Brazil welcomes the way out we find today that is discussing ways of involving stakeholders but always respecting UN rules: Brazil also would like to play a constructive role in this, and we believe we could offer to your consideration Madam Chairperson, two suggestions regarding transparency and openess: * The meetings should also be fully committed to openess: each chair of each meetings of the working group may invite, for example, 5 speakers from each stakeholder group which are recognized in Tunis Agenda - civil society, business sector and international institutions; * each stakeholders present in each session of work could decide themselves who will be the five representatives, but they will take into account, whenever possible, the balanced participation of representatives from developing and developed countries, including those who are not already registered as observers in UN or ECOSOC; * The working group already defined by you, Madam Chairperson, will have meetings that are fully committed to transparency - any states, or other stakeholders may attend the meetings. In order to conclude Brazil would like to thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for all the consultations made about the establishment of this working group: in vilnius, in last november and december the 6th. You provided us an example of how dealing with a such a complex process in a transparent way, not in a black box approach" UNQUOTE -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Dec 17 12:20:22 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:20:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD In-Reply-To: <802E25EAA619460DB9075B0430E194E6@userPC> References: <20884E76-4937-49DC-9894-A1FB8867F998@graduateinstitute.ch>,<802E25EAA619460DB9075B0430E194E6@userPC> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F97@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents from my Syracuse cheap seat: real issue is neither seats at CSTD's temporary table nor openness of this IGF improvements suggesting process. It's about future of 'enhanced cooperation,' with many developing countries putting in markers now for a future Internet IGO aka mechanism for enhanced cooperation. So I'm guessing they reach a conclusion semi-acceptable to cs for now, but this whole day is but a sideshow to 2011's theater. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Drake William'; 'Marilia Maciel' Subject: RE: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD Hmmm... Interesting... Clearly a difference in perception as to what the central issue is... Some (all?) governments seem to see it as a question of "transparency" and "openness", everyone else sees it as an issue of "seat at the table-ism". M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Drake William Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD Since I just finished sending Alvaro a reply on the same, I might as well share it. Thanks Alvaro. I appreciate your intent to find a middle way, but being invited as a non-member of the WG to speak at a meeting isn't real multistakeholderism, isn't consistent with the Tunis Agenda, and isn't terribly attractive. I don't see why nongovernmental should help in such a scenario, personally. On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Brazilian speech, Dec 17th, morning session CSTD: QUOTE Brazil welcomes the way out we find today that is discussing ways of involving stakeholders but always respecting UN rules: Brazil also would like to play a constructive role in this, and we believe we could offer to your consideration Madam Chairperson, two suggestions regarding transparency and openess: * The meetings should also be fully committed to openess: each chair of each meetings of the working group may invite, for example, 5 speakers from each stakeholder group which are recognized in Tunis Agenda - civil society, business sector and international institutions; * each stakeholders present in each session of work could decide themselves who will be the five representatives, but they will take into account, whenever possible, the balanced participation of representatives from developing and developed countries, including those who are not already registered as observers in UN or ECOSOC; * The working group already defined by you, Madam Chairperson, will have meetings that are fully committed to transparency – any states, or other stakeholders may attend the meetings. In order to conclude Brazil would like to thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for all the consultations made about the establishment of this working group: in vilnius, in last november and december the 6th. You provided us an example of how dealing with a such a complex process in a transparent way, not in a black box approach" UNQUOTE -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.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 katitza at eff.org Fri Dec 17 12:24:19 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:24:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F97@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20884E76-4937-49DC-9894-A1FB8867F998@graduateinstitute.ch>,<802E25EAA619460DB9075B0430E194E6@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F97@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D0B9CC3.5000402@eff.org> +1. Same opinion here! On 12/17/10 9:20 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > My 2 cents from my Syracuse cheap seat: real issue is neither seats at CSTD's temporary table nor openness of this IGF improvements suggesting process. > > It's about future of 'enhanced cooperation,' with many developing countries putting in markers now for a future Internet IGO aka mechanism for enhanced cooperation. > > So I'm guessing they reach a conclusion semi-acceptable to cs for now, but this whole day is but a sideshow to 2011's theater. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:09 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Drake William'; 'Marilia Maciel' > Subject: RE: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD > > Hmmm... Interesting... Clearly a difference in perception as to what the central issue is... > > Some (all?) governments seem to see it as a question of "transparency" and "openness", everyone else sees it as an issue of "seat at the table-ism". > > M > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Drake William > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:50 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel > Subject: Re: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD > > Since I just finished sending Alvaro a reply on the same, I might as well share it. > > Thanks Alvaro. I appreciate your intent to find a middle way, but being invited as a non-member of the WG to speak at a meeting isn't real multistakeholderism, isn't consistent with the Tunis Agenda, and isn't terribly attractive. I don't see why nongovernmental should help in such a scenario, personally. > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Brazilian speech, Dec 17th, morning session CSTD: > > QUOTE > > Brazil welcomes the way out we find today that is discussing ways of involving stakeholders but always respecting UN rules: > > Brazil also would like to play a constructive role in this, and we believe we could offer to your consideration Madam Chairperson, two suggestions regarding transparency and openess: > > * The meetings should also be fully committed to openess: each chair of each meetings of the working group may invite, for example, 5 speakers from each stakeholder group which are recognized in Tunis Agenda - civil society, business sector and international institutions; > > * each stakeholders present in each session of work could decide themselves who will be the five representatives, but they will take into account, whenever possible, the balanced participation of representatives from developing and developed countries, including those who are not already registered as observers in UN or ECOSOC; > > * The working group already defined by you, Madam Chairperson, will have meetings that are fully committed to transparency – any states, or other stakeholders may attend the meetings. > > In order to conclude Brazil would like to thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for all the consultations made about the establishment of this working group: in vilnius, in last november and december the 6th. You provided us an example of how dealing with a such a complex process in a transparent way, not in a black box approach" > > UNQUOTE > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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 > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.williamdrake.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 -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Dec 17 12:25:30 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:25:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Amazing Message-ID: The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our participation, silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the lights and do a voice vote. Bill Sent from my iPhone ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 12:24:38 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:24:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <7284FCC0EF130B4E9C9287B9681048351BB97DA9@SRVC252.mityc.age> <7BCCC554-BD04-4BBC-8B0C-CBE98F05F666@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Was there a wrap up? What is going on? On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > [The show goes on] - after the following, the secretariat is going to > compile two proposals and put them onto the screen - five minutes > break. > > > Canada, still confused – and like the UK/Tunisia proposal > > Chair > Proposal on the floor is what UK read. > My proposal of 5+5+5+ 5 IGO is still there > > Philippines > Seek for clarification > We can go along with proposal of Iran, but not with UK/Tunisia > > India > Support the Iranian proposal > Re numbers – there has to be balance between states and other stakeholders > 3+3+3+3 > We will have difficulty with UK proposal – > Stakeholders on equal footing on > Clarify this is the WG of the Chair > But the report will be that of CSTD > > APC > Express concern the numbering proposal, from Iran and India > We fail to understand how to include developing countries with that numbers > I do support the Iran to support the developing countries participation > Status of WG and output – it appears > Two resolutions in General Assembly and ECOSOC > WG Output is the input to CSTD, and then make recommendations to CSTD > Para 18 of second committee reads as: > Welcomes ECOSOC resolution para 30 to invite Chair – > > > South Africa > We support proposal by Iran on Chapeau > WG 20+2 - already established > We can increase the numbers into 2, but not accept the language of UK > proposal > There should be the distinction – between government and other > stakeholders and Iran proposal captures > > Chair > Go back to 5+5+5 plus IGO > I invite UK to polish up > > UK > > > > > Chair, I will invite UK to table resolution > > “The Chair of the CSTD decides on an exceptional basis and without > prejudice to the rules of the procedure of the function of the > commission and the ECOSOC, to establish the Working Group which would > seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and all of the > stakeholders on improvement of IGF, in open and inclusive manner > throughout the process, composed the following” > > Chair > Participation of non-governmental entities, civil society – for development > At 19 July, ECOSOC calling 2006/42, on 28 July 2008, and resolution of > 18 July 2008, in recognizing the need for meaningful participation and > contributions for civil society, > Madam Chair, trying to bring this meeting to consensus – I appeal to > all of us – this morning and afternoon – to build the consensus and > trust – that Chair decide on exceptional basis without prejudice > > The Chair of CSTD decides as a proposal, > > “The Chair of CSTD invites the following stakeholders on an > exceptional basis without prejudice to the established rules of ECOSOC > – to establish a Working Group which would seek, compile and review > inputs from all member states and all of the stakeholders on > improvement of IGF 5 from CS, 5 from business, 5 from technical and > academia and International organizations. > > Egypt > I am confused with all proposals. > > Chair > These will be in addition to governments > > Egypt > Normally, at CSTD, those stakeholders are only allowed when invited by > the Chair to speak? Is this the way? > > Chair > Within the established rule of ECOSOC and CSTD > > Egypt > If they are going to work with established rules, then no need to add? 105? > > Chair > We have 20+ 2 and 15 plus International organization > > India > I want to request if the proposal be read again > > Chair > Proposals are almost identical – not much difference > We need to compile two together > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:24:53 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:24:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf on the current discussion Message-ID: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/12/governments-shouldnt-have-mon opoly-on.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:29:01 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:29:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Amazing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: if the wording says "invites to participate" that could be OK (see my proposed formulation) IF there is a set number of CS, PS and TA participants, identified in the group. otherwise, if it is in the direction of the Brazilian "invited to speak at the discretion of the Chair", it should be a no go. B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:25 PM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room > trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited > guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our participation, > silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. > > It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the > lights and do a voice vote. > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:31:12 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:31:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] (was Fanstastic) From us stay at home fans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EED21A7940D44A7ABB6F09CC0E3E15A@userPC> Fantastic play-by-play Izumi... But it would be good also for us stay at home fans to get a bit more colour commentary from the experts among us on how the game is progressing, the strategies that the various teams are pursuing, possible outcomes, missed scoring opportunities etc.etc. And then some extended post-game analysis would be extremely usefol on what went on, what it means for the overall league standings, possiblity of future recruitments, injuries and folks taken from field on crutches -- that sort of thing. Mike (and sorry for the sports analogy ;-) -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:25 AM To: Governance Subject: [governance] Amazing The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our participation, silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the lights and do a voice vote. Bill Sent from my iPhone ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:36:54 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:36:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] (was Fanstastic) From us stay at home fans In-Reply-To: <3EED21A7940D44A7ABB6F09CC0E3E15A@userPC> References: <3EED21A7940D44A7ABB6F09CC0E3E15A@userPC> Message-ID: Coherent analogy, given previous exchanges I totally support your suggestions. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Fantastic play-by-play Izumi... But it would be good also for us stay at > home fans to get a bit more colour commentary from the experts among us on > how the game is progressing, the strategies that the various teams are > pursuing, possible outcomes, missed scoring opportunities etc.etc. > > And then some extended post-game analysis would be extremely usefol on what > went on, what it means for the overall league standings, possiblity of > future recruitments, injuries and folks taken from field on crutches -- > that > sort of thing. > > Mike (and sorry for the sports analogy ;-) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:25 AM > To: Governance > Subject: [governance] Amazing > > > The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room > trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited > guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our participation, > silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. > > It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the > lights and do a voice vote. > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:40:31 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] (was Fanstastic) From us stay at home fans In-Reply-To: <3EED21A7940D44A7ABB6F09CC0E3E15A@userPC> References: <3EED21A7940D44A7ABB6F09CC0E3E15A@userPC> Message-ID: I enjoyed the analogy Analogies are always great! They convey in straight language what often we fail to communicate in more esoteric jargon. Rui 2010/12/17 Michael Gurstein > > Fantastic play-by-play Izumi... But it would be good also for us stay at > home fans to get a bit more colour commentary from the experts among us on > how the game is progressing, the strategies that the various teams are > pursuing, possible outcomes, missed scoring opportunities etc.etc. > > And then some extended post-game analysis would be extremely usefol on what > went on, what it means for the overall league standings, possiblity of > future recruitments, injuries and folks taken from field on crutches -- > that > sort of thing. > > Mike (and sorry for the sports analogy ;-) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:25 AM > To: Governance > Subject: [governance] Amazing > > > The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room > trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited > guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our participation, > silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. > > It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the > lights and do a voice vote. > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- _________________________ 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 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 12:41:56 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:41:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the message"... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In message , at 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:47:29 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:47:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] On the video of the consultations on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: Dear all, While following the drama unfolding in Geneva on the group of the chair of the CSTD regarding IGF improvements, I finally took the time to watch the video of the December 14 consultations in New York on enhanced cooperation (visible at : http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html). I encourage everybody to do the same, not so much for the interventions of the participants (relatively predictable) but to pay attention to the - very lengthy - interventions of UN Undersecretary General Sha in between the various speeches from the floor. A very interesting illustration of a high-ranking UN official's "neutrality" :-( Enjoy. B. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 12:53:47 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:53:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. izumi 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : > I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the > message"... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > > In message , > at > 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes > >>I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. > > So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on > the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? > -- > 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 > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 12:55:34 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:55:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: conspiracy theory ? :-) On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > > izumi > > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : > > I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the > > message"... > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > > > > > In message > >, > > at > > 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes > > > >>I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. > > > > So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on > > the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Fri Dec 17 12:58:58 2010 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (Jonathan Cave) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:58:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Amazing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1870118012-1292608738-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2077257929-@b12.c1.bise7.blackberry> More likely lights off then a show of hands. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:25:30 To: Governance Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,William Drake Subject: [governance] Amazing The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our participation, silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the lights and do a voice vote. Bill Sent from my iPhone ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Fri Dec 17 13:04:27 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:04:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. Markus had left. People shouting at the chair EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction Maybe time to pull the plug on this Bill Sent from my iPhone On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > > izumi > > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >> message"... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >> >> >> In message , >> at >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >> >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. >> >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 13:07:08 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:07:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: frightening. question : has there been a "Decision" ? Ie, have governments actually taken a vote ? B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:04 PM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by > Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > > > > izumi > > > > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : > >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the > >> message"... > >> > >> M > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > >> > >> > >> In message BB_N9arPOnVnUQNs0hxyVGXNje+bM0vvuforw at mail.gmail.com > >, > >> at > >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes > >> > >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. > >> > >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on > >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Dec 17 13:14:54 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:14:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Chair read atrocious "consensus text" and tried to call it, US EU Canada ICC IGJ all said no. I think we should say ECOSOC rules are non-negotiable. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 17, 2010, at 19:07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > frightening. > > question : has there been a "Decision" ? Ie, have governments actually taken a vote ? > > B. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:04 PM, William Drake wrote: > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > > > > izumi > > > > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : > >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the > >> message"... > >> > >> M > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > >> > >> > >> In message , > >> at > >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes > >> > >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. > >> > >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on > >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > 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 > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Dec 17 13:14:50 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:14:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> References: ,<8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Bill, Don't pull plug. If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set up on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more lively. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. Markus had left. People shouting at the chair EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction Maybe time to pull the plug on this Bill Sent from my iPhone On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > > izumi > > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >> message"... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >> >> >> In message , >> at >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >> >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. >> >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 13:26:22 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:26:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Amazing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, we are or they are in the middle of battle - be invited guest is almost done deal. Under the discretion of the Chair or not is the remaining question, it seems. But they never give up to keep the sovereignty. izumi 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > if the wording says "invites to participate" that could be OK (see my > proposed formulation) IF there is a set number of CS, PS and TA > participants, identified in the group. > otherwise, if it is in the direction of the Brazilian "invited to speak at > the discretion of the Chair", it should be a no go. > > B. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:25 PM, William Drake > wrote: >> >> The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room >> trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited >> guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our participation, >> silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. >> >> It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the >> lights and do a voice vote. >> >> Bill >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 13:26:42 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:26:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Respectfully disagree, Lee. Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the letter of this resolution. Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation of an absolutely straightforward wording ? Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would be, purely and simply illegitimate. Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Bill, > > Don't pull plug. > > If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not > participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are > welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. > > Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set up > on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) > > Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? > > Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. > > And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more lively. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] > On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by > Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > > > > izumi > > > > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : > >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the > >> message"... > >> > >> M > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > >> > >> > >> In message BB_N9arPOnVnUQNs0hxyVGXNje+bM0vvuforw at mail.gmail.com > >, > >> at > >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes > >> > >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. > >> > >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on > >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 13:28:39 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:28:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Amazing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi, Are EU, US and Canada accepting this approach ? B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Well, we are or they are in the middle of battle - be invited guest is > almost done deal. Under the discretion of the Chair or not is the > remaining question, it seems. But they never give up to keep the > sovereignty. > > izumi > > 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > > if the wording says "invites to participate" that could be OK (see my > > proposed formulation) IF there is a set number of CS, PS and TA > > participants, identified in the group. > > otherwise, if it is in the direction of the Brazilian "invited to speak > at > > the discretion of the Chair", it should be a no go. > > > > B. > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:25 PM, William Drake > > wrote: > >> > >> The microphones are off, we have all crammed into the front of the room > >> trying to read faint letters on a screen. The text leaves us as invited > >> guests, not members. I asked what incentive is there for our > participation, > >> silence. Marilyn and Izumi have gotten up to agree. > >> > >> It's an incredible way to make decisions. Maybe next the'll turn off the > >> lights and do a voice vote. > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint > > Exupéry > > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 13:35:33 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:35:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Amazing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No, EU, Canada, US, Chile, UK, and Mexico are all voicing No. Clearly. izumi 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Izumi, > Are EU, US and Canada accepting this approach ? > B. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Well, we are or they are in the middle of battle - be invited guest is >> almost done deal. Under the discretion of the Chair or not is the >> remaining question, it seems. But they never give up to keep the >> sovereignty. >> >> izumi >> >> 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : >> > if the wording says "invites to participate" that could be OK (see my >> > proposed formulation) IF there is a set number of CS, PS and TA >> > participants, identified in the group. >> > otherwise, if it is in the direction of the Brazilian "invited to speak >> > at >> > the discretion of the Chair", it should be a no go. >> > >> > B. >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 13:30:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:30:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hey Bertrand, We don't know yet if Bill would be bluffing right? Izumi as co-coordinator maybe should be more..politic but Bill or Anriette could stick their necks out. Since if the meetings ends as it stands, the assembled government reps should know it is a non-starter for other MSH's and they just wasted a day. In everyone's respective roles as they say. Lee ________________________________________ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:26 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: William Drake; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Respectfully disagree, Lee. Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the letter of this resolution. Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation of an absolutely straightforward wording ? Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would be, purely and simply illegitimate. Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. B. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Bill, Don't pull plug. If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set up on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more lively. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. Markus had left. People shouting at the chair EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction Maybe time to pull the plug on this Bill Sent from my iPhone On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU > wrote: > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > > izumi > > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein >: >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >> message"... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >> >> >> In message >, >> at >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU > writes >> >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. >> >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Dec 17 13:52:25 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:52:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <80A45B60-80BA-45D7-96D6-6F560DA0237C@graduateinstitute.ch> Iran said we must have ECOSOC rules. I said it would be extremely hard for CS to live under ECOSOC rules, we can't sell it to folks, and that we worked very well with the Iranian rep in WGIG without such. Text now circulated at US insistence drops the rules. Now discussing lingo on encouraging vs requiring equal developing country participation, may be an issue for biz etc. One happy change this time, EU and US repeatedly saying there must be fair treatment of nongovernmentals. Better late than never. Almost 8pm, lights going out in building, I will have to leave soon. Bill Sent from my iPhone On Dec 17, 2010, at 19:30, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hey Bertrand, > > We don't know yet if Bill would be bluffing right? Izumi as co-coordinator maybe should be more..politic but Bill or Anriette could stick their necks out. > > Since if the meetings ends as it stands, the assembled government reps should know it is a non-starter for other MSH's and they just wasted a day. > > In everyone's respective roles as they say. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:26 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight > Cc: William Drake; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > Respectfully disagree, Lee. > > Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. > > M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the letter of this resolution. > > Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? > > How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation of an absolutely straightforward wording ? > > Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would be, purely and simply illegitimate. > > Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. > > B. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > Bill, > > Don't pull plug. > > If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. > > Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set up on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) > > Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? > > Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. > > And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more lively. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU > wrote: > >> There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. >> >> izumi >> >> 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein >: >>> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >>> message"... >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >>> >>> >>> In message >, >>> at >>> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU > writes >>> >>>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. >>> >>> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on >>> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >>>> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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 > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 14:03:37 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:03:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <80A45B60-80BA-45D7-96D6-6F560DA0237C@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <80A45B60-80BA-45D7-96D6-6F560DA0237C@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Deja vu from WIPO meetings on copyright. In June discussions went until 23h, there was no translation anymore and US delegation ordered pizza.... On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:52 PM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > Iran said we must have ECOSOC rules. I said it would be extremely hard for > CS to live under ECOSOC rules, we can't sell it to folks, and that we worked > very well with the Iranian rep in WGIG without such. > > Text now circulated at US insistence drops the rules. Now discussing lingo > on encouraging vs requiring equal developing country participation, may be > an issue for biz etc. > > One happy change this time, EU and US repeatedly saying there must be fair > treatment of nongovernmentals. Better late than never. > > Almost 8pm, lights going out in building, I will have to leave soon. > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 19:30, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hey Bertrand, > > > > We don't know yet if Bill would be bluffing right? Izumi as > co-coordinator maybe should be more..politic but Bill or Anriette could > stick their necks out. > > > > Since if the meetings ends as it stands, the assembled government reps > should know it is a non-starter for other MSH's and they just wasted a day. > > > > In everyone's respective roles as they say. > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:26 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight > > Cc: William Drake; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > > > Respectfully disagree, Lee. > > > > Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome > (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. > > > > M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the > exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question > of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but > complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the > letter of this resolution. > > > > Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear > paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? > > > > How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation > of an absolutely straightforward wording ? > > > > Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and > hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would > be, purely and simply illegitimate. > > > > Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 > signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. > The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. > > > > B. > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > Bill, > > > > Don't pull plug. > > > > If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not > participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are > welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. > > > > Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set > up on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) > > > > Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? > > > > Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. > > > > And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more > lively. > > > > Lee > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org governance-request at lists.cpsr.org> [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > ] On Behalf Of William Drake [ > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>] > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi > AIZU > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael > Gurstein; Roland Perry > > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > > > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by > Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > > > Bill > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU > > wrote: > > > >> There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com>>: > >>> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the > >>> message"... > >>> > >>> M > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org governance-request at lists.cpsr.org> > >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders > 5+5+5 > >>> > >>> > >>> In message BB_N9arPOnVnUQNs0hxyVGXNje+bM0vvuforw at mail.gmail.com > > >>, > >>> at > >>> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU aizu at anr.org>> writes > >>> > >>>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. > >>> > >>> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress > on > >>> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? > >>> -- > >>> 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 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >>>> Izumi Aizu << > >> > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan > >> * * * * * > >> << Writing the Future of the History >> > >> www.anr.org > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 14:30:05 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:30:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F97@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <626319E2C84C4189A9630F7CD05457A4@userPC> Yes, I agree that that is the deeper game that is being played--I was simply referring to the particular set of strategic manuevers being played out at the moment... M -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:20 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Drake William'; 'Marilia Maciel' Subject: RE: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD My 2 cents from my Syracuse cheap seat: real issue is neither seats at CSTD's temporary table nor openness of this IGF improvements suggesting process. It's about future of 'enhanced cooperation,' with many developing countries putting in markers now for a future Internet IGO aka mechanism for enhanced cooperation. So I'm guessing they reach a conclusion semi-acceptable to cs for now, but this whole day is but a sideshow to 2011's theater. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:09 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Drake William'; 'Marilia Maciel' Subject: RE: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD Hmmm... Interesting... Clearly a difference in perception as to what the central issue is... Some (all?) governments seem to see it as a question of "transparency" and "openness", everyone else sees it as an issue of "seat at the table-ism". M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Drake William Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [governance] Brazilian speech morning session CSTD Since I just finished sending Alvaro a reply on the same, I might as well share it. Thanks Alvaro. I appreciate your intent to find a middle way, but being invited as a non-member of the WG to speak at a meeting isn't real multistakeholderism, isn't consistent with the Tunis Agenda, and isn't terribly attractive. I don't see why nongovernmental should help in such a scenario, personally. On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Brazilian speech, Dec 17th, morning session CSTD: QUOTE Brazil welcomes the way out we find today that is discussing ways of involving stakeholders but always respecting UN rules: Brazil also would like to play a constructive role in this, and we believe we could offer to your consideration Madam Chairperson, two suggestions regarding transparency and openess: * The meetings should also be fully committed to openess: each chair of each meetings of the working group may invite, for example, 5 speakers from each stakeholder group which are recognized in Tunis Agenda - civil society, business sector and international institutions; * each stakeholders present in each session of work could decide themselves who will be the five representatives, but they will take into account, whenever possible, the balanced participation of representatives from developing and developed countries, including those who are not already registered as observers in UN or ECOSOC; * The working group already defined by you, Madam Chairperson, will have meetings that are fully committed to transparency - any states, or other stakeholders may attend the meetings. In order to conclude Brazil would like to thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for all the consultations made about the establishment of this working group: in vilnius, in last november and december the 6th. You provided us an example of how dealing with a such a complex process in a transparent way, not in a black box approach" UNQUOTE -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.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 anriette at apc.org Fri Dec 17 14:40:46 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:40:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D0BBCBE.4080800@apc.org> Dear Lee I would be happy to stick my head out but had to leave for the airport. I had suggested the language 'be invited to join the working group...' which was endorsed by the EU but that is now long gone. We will need to see what they come up with and then APC will consult with our members and decide whether to participate or not. I personally feel that if we cannot participate in discussion and formulation of text it is not worth it. We have made so many submissions already. And so have others. If the next stage does not allow us to discuss and debate the substance of IGF improvements with governments, what is the point of spending time and resources to write statements, submit them, and travel 10s of thousands of kilometers to read them. Anriette On 17/12/10 20:30, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hey Bertrand, > > We don't know yet if Bill would be bluffing right? Izumi as co-coordinator maybe should be more..politic but Bill or Anriette could stick their necks out. > > Since if the meetings ends as it stands, the assembled government reps should know it is a non-starter for other MSH's and they just wasted a day. > > In everyone's respective roles as they say. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:26 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight > Cc: William Drake; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > Respectfully disagree, Lee. > > Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. > > M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the letter of this resolution. > > Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? > > How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation of an absolutely straightforward wording ? > > Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would be, purely and simply illegitimate. > > Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. > > B. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight> wrote: > Bill, > > Don't pull plug. > > If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. > > Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set up on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) > > Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? > > Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. > > And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more lively. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU> wrote: > >> There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. >> >> izumi >> >> 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein>: >>> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >>> message"... >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >>> >>> >>> In message>, >>> at >>> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU> writes >>> >>>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. >>> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on >>> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu<< >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History>> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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 > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 14:56:55 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:26:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Bertrand, On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Respectfully disagree, Lee. > > Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome > (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. > > M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the > exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question > of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but > complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the > letter of this resolution. > > Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear > paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? > > How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation > of an absolutely straightforward wording ? > Some Governments, (including the ones who are known to have relatively high respect for the Civil Society) appear to be strongly inclined to steer Internet Governance away from the multi-stakeholder principle. The non-conformist Internet did not suit these Governments and Wikileaks has scared many Governments so much so that some of these Governments are determined to assert an assumed right to take an upper hand in Internet Governance. With such a mindset, the policy making process is bound to get distorted and is bound to become unfair. Civil Society is being brushed aside. This is very good time for Governments to alter the process of Internet Governance. After the first five years this is a transition phase; The Chair of the IGF has served a 5 year term. Markus Kummer has decided not to seek an extended period of service. The possibility of a new IGF Administration with new people should also be a serious cause for concern. We need to do work on this in several ways NOW to ensure that the mutli stakeholder principle prevails. To ensure enhanced co-operation, all non-Governmental stakeholders groups have to enhance co-operation within. And do a lot more work than draft letters of protest or sign petitions. As you have suggested, we need to get the press to support multi-stakeholder Governance and we will also have to work on getting the good people in good governments to get more people from more governments to endorse the multi-stakeholder principle. Sivasubramanian M > > Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and > hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would > be, purely and simply illegitimate. > > Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 > signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. > The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. > > B. > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> Don't pull plug. >> >> If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not >> participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are >> welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. >> >> Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set up >> on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) >> >> Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? >> >> Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. >> >> And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more >> lively. >> >> Lee >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [ >> governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [ >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >> >> Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. >> >> Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by >> Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. >> >> The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. >> >> Markus had left. People shouting at the chair >> >> EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction >> >> Maybe time to pull the plug on this >> >> Bill >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : >> >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >> >> message"... >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >> >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders >> 5+5+5 >> >> >> >> >> >> In message > BB_N9arPOnVnUQNs0hxyVGXNje+bM0vvuforw at mail.gmail.com >> >, >> >> at >> >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >> >> >> >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. >> >> >> >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress >> on >> >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> Izumi Aizu << >> > >> > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> > >> > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> > Japan >> > * * * * * >> > << Writing the Future of the History >> >> > www.anr.org >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 17 15:22:17 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:22:17 -0200 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I understand that the meeting must have ended abruptely... But please let us know how it ended when you can. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Bertrand, > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Respectfully disagree, Lee. >> >> Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome >> (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. >> >> M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the >> exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question >> of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but >> complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the >> letter of this resolution. >> >> Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear >> paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? >> >> How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation >> of an absolutely straightforward wording ? >> > > Some Governments, (including the ones who are known to have relatively high > respect for the Civil Society) appear to be strongly inclined to steer > Internet Governance away from the multi-stakeholder principle. The > non-conformist Internet did not suit these Governments and Wikileaks has > scared many Governments so much so that some of these Governments are > determined to assert an assumed right to take an upper hand in Internet > Governance. With such a mindset, the policy making process is bound to get > distorted and is bound to become unfair. Civil Society is being brushed > aside. > > This is very good time for Governments to alter the process of Internet > Governance. After the first five years this is a transition phase; The > Chair of the IGF has served a 5 year term. Markus Kummer has decided not to > seek an extended period of service. The possibility of a new IGF > Administration with new people should also be a serious cause for concern. > > We need to do work on this in several ways NOW to ensure that the mutli > stakeholder principle prevails. To ensure enhanced co-operation, all > non-Governmental stakeholders groups have to enhance co-operation within. > And do a lot more work than draft letters of protest or sign petitions. As > you have suggested, we need to get the press to support multi-stakeholder > Governance and we will also have to work on getting the good people in good > governments to get more people from more governments to endorse the > multi-stakeholder principle. > > Sivasubramanian M > > >> >> Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and >> hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would >> be, purely and simply illegitimate. >> >> Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 >> signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. >> The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. >> >> B. >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> Bill, >>> >>> Don't pull plug. >>> >>> If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not >>> participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are >>> welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. >>> >>> Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set >>> up on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) >>> >>> Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? >>> >>> Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. >>> >>> And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more >>> lively. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [ >>> governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [ >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU >>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >>> >>> Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. >>> >>> Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by >>> Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. >>> >>> The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. >>> >>> Markus had left. People shouting at the chair >>> >>> EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction >>> >>> Maybe time to pull the plug on this >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>> > There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. >>> > >>> > izumi >>> > >>> > 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein : >>> >> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >>> >> message"... >>> >> >>> >> M >>> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >>> >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >>> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders >>> 5+5+5 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> In message >> BB_N9arPOnVnUQNs0hxyVGXNje+bM0vvuforw at mail.gmail.com >>> >, >>> >> at >>> >> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >>> >> >>> >>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 >>> minutes. >>> >> >>> >> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress >>> on >>> >> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >>> >> -- >>> >> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >> Izumi Aizu << >>> > >>> > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> > >>> > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> > Japan >>> > * * * * * >>> > << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> > www.anr.org >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> > 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Dec 17 15:32:42 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:32:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <4D0BBCBE.4080800@apc.org> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F9F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4D0BBCBE.4080800@apc.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FA7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi Anriette, Oh good your personal neck then is indeed out. Since it is still unclear at least to me what final text emerged, I suppose my seconding your personal call...for cs to save travel costs and aggravation dealing with the suggested Hardly Working group; is premature as well. But...it would certainly be cheaper, easier and faster to do something similar to that proposed - form a working group to suggest improvements in IGF - all online, without those pesky off-topic government folks distracting people from substantive matters. Well maybe we invite them to comment, for 5 minutes, when we're done. I mean when you're done, since it's your neck out there. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 2:40 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 Dear Lee I would be happy to stick my head out but had to leave for the airport. I had suggested the language 'be invited to join the working group...' which was endorsed by the EU but that is now long gone. We will need to see what they come up with and then APC will consult with our members and decide whether to participate or not. I personally feel that if we cannot participate in discussion and formulation of text it is not worth it. We have made so many submissions already. And so have others. If the next stage does not allow us to discuss and debate the substance of IGF improvements with governments, what is the point of spending time and resources to write statements, submit them, and travel 10s of thousands of kilometers to read them. Anriette On 17/12/10 20:30, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hey Bertrand, > > We don't know yet if Bill would be bluffing right? Izumi as co-coordinator maybe should be more..politic but Bill or Anriette could stick their necks out. > > Since if the meetings ends as it stands, the assembled government reps should know it is a non-starter for other MSH's and they just wasted a day. > > In everyone's respective roles as they say. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:26 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight > Cc: William Drake; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > Respectfully disagree, Lee. > > Let's see the end of it today and then, depending on the final outcome (that does not look good), seriously consider boycott. > > M. Sha, in the consultations on enhanced cooperation, repeatedly used the exact wording of the CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA resolution to hammer that the question of the relationship between IGF and enhanced cooperation (separate but complementary) had been finally set and that we should all stick with the letter of this resolution. > > Why should it be the case for that statement and not for the very clear paragraph regarding the group to be set up BY THE CHAIR of the CSTD ? > > How can a whole day of discussion have revolved around the interpretation of an absolutely straightforward wording ? > > Bottom line : a group composed only of governmental representatives (and hopefully without the governments that oppose the current "consensus") would be, purely and simply illegitimate. > > Official protest necessary if it goes that way. There are more than 1000 signatures for the previous petition, including Vint on behalf of Google. The new one should be even louder - and involve the press. > > B. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Lee W McKnight> wrote: > Bill, > > Don't pull plug. > > If you or Izumi get one more chance to be heard: say IGC will not participate on currently proposed basis, but governments of course are welcome to talk to themselves whenever they wish. > > Or, they can contribute to separate instant virtual MSH wg igc will set up on igf improvements...by Monday ; ) > > Right Jeremy you're not busy this weekend? > > Or, they can agree to chair's 'compromise' with bertrand's finetuning. > > And, say their shouting will make the media stories about this more lively. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:53, Izumi AIZU> wrote: > >> There have been no network connection in the past 20 minutes or so. >> >> izumi >> >> 2010/12/18 Michael Gurstein>: >>> I have a feeling that in this instance at least "the medium is the >>> message"... >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:37 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 >>> >>> >>> In message>, >>> at >>> 00:13:22 on Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU> writes >>> >>>> I don't think They will reach agreement by end of today in 20 minutes. >>> So the whole day has been used up discussing process, and no progress on >>> the substantive issues (how to improve the IGF)? >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu<< >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History>> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> 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 > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 16:09:49 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:09:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Final score in CSTD consultations ?? Message-ID: Dear all, Is anybody able to say what finally happened ? Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 17 16:26:26 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:26:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <3D35B9EB-290E-470D-97DA-29B08F78F853@acm.org> >> Maybe time to pull the plug on this indeed. I see no way in which anyone who is not either in a government or a beggar at government's door should or would accept this. time for plan B? a. On 17 Dec 2010, at 13:04, William Drake wrote: > Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. > > Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. > > The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. > > Markus had left. People shouting at the chair > > EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction > > Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 17 16:43:32 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:43:32 +1100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <3D35B9EB-290E-470D-97DA-29B08F78F853@acm.org> Message-ID: Strange days indeed. One would have thought that nation states would have learnt from recent events such as wikileaks that they have no hope whatsoever of governing or influencing this without co-operation from all other parties. King Canute would have been proud of their efforts however... Anyway all organisational structures influence their longevity or their demise by their actions. All sorts of events are suggesting to me that some bigger changes will evolve over the next 100 years or so as a result of the effects of globally connnected information and communication networks. This is the early days, and a few more empires are yet to crumble. Ian Peter > From: Avri > Reply-To: , Avri > Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:26:26 -0500 > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 > >>> Maybe time to pull the plug on this > > indeed. > > I see no way in which anyone who is not either in a government or a beggar at > government's door should or would accept this. > > time for plan B? > > a. > > On 17 Dec 2010, at 13:04, William Drake wrote: > >> Nongovernmental views "shall be taken into consideration" by the WG. >> >> Izumi raised a concern about CS treatment and was almost shouted down by >> Egypt. US expressed strong concern about CS being dealt with badly. >> >> The screen with the text just rolled up, so we can't see it. >> >> Markus had left. People shouting at the chair >> >> EU is now finally asking to drop the rules of procedure restriction >> >> Maybe time to pull the plug on this >> >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Dec 17 16:54:41 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 06:54:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: <3D35B9EB-290E-470D-97DA-29B08F78F853@acm.org> References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <3D35B9EB-290E-470D-97DA-29B08F78F853@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, sorry for not able to report from the room for the final outcome. The network connection lost, in the room. No projection available, then the Screen went up. Here follows is the final text agreed by all. Well, we didn't endorse explicitly but we did not protest against it. They circulated the final draft, printed, as version three, around 21:04, and it had one round of discussion, almost changed "The outcome" to "The report" in the last line, and replaced "reached" with "adopted". I will put my impression in a separate thread. Now it's almost 11 pm, Friday. Long day indeed, but not the longest ;-). izumi ---------------- The Chair of the CSTD establishes a Working Group of 15 member states plus the five member states which hosted the IG meetings plus the two member states which hosted WSIS. This Working Group will seek, compile, and review inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders on improvement of the Internet Governance Forum, in an open and inclusive manner throughout the process. The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively participate in the Working Group, bearing in mind the established rules of procedure of the ECOSOC, who will remain fully engaged throughout the process: - 5 Business community - 5 Civil society - 5 Technical and academic community - 5 intergovernmental organizations Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227, and 2010/228, maximum possible assistance, diversity of ideas, and the equal representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the Working Group should be ensured in consultation with the stakeholders. The report of this Working Group will be adopted by consensus. END ------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 17:07:13 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:07:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry for the delay. Now back at the hotel, munching some bread. Well, as I put in the previous thread, Round III, they all reached the consensus of the text. Both sides kind of compromised for some words against other. In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG, but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. There was a proposal from Iran, I guess to have only 2 from each sector, not 5. The Chair sort of insisted that they be 5 each, provided that the status of these non-gov actors are lower than the gov members. So OECD governments, let's say became somewhat relived by seeing at least there be some members from CS, PS and tech and academia inside the WG, not with the full membership, nor the "observer" - can participate in the debate and deliberations, but not at the decision making. Well that's how most governments accept. So then the focus of the debate went to the "rules of the procedures of ECOSOC and CSTD" - how much to impose these to non-gov actors. "in accordance with" was sort of first version, then Greece proposed: "bearing in mind"... at one time it was dropped, then came back, then Mexico questioned the secretariat if there is any CSTD rules of procedure. The answer was No, only functional commissions of the CSTD has rules of procedures, but not CSTD itself. So they dropped reference of CSTD and only left ECOSOC. There are some details where the devils or the angels may reside but no one had the energy to visit the details - say how to select the civil society members, etc. Of course, the outcome is far from satisfactory. Better than the Dec 6 decision? I think yes. Worth to pull the plug? I don't think so, at least at this stage, no. Frankly, we did not have that much coherent move, yet. We do not have active work of strategy, outreach and work plan, yet. I mean it is not too late to work on these and define what exactly we like to gain, nor not to lose and then head to the next round. Simply boycotting AT THIS STAGE doesn't give much gain, IMHO. Thanks, izumi (gimme a break). 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Dear all, > Is anybody able to say what finally happened ? > Best > Bertrand > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 17:10:19 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:40:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un-mulls-internet-regulation-options.aspx Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Sorry for the delay. Now back at the hotel, munching some bread. > > Well, as I put in the previous thread, Round III, they all reached the > consensus of the text. Both sides kind of compromised for some words > against other. > > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG, > but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second > class citizen" > which has been used many times during the negotiation. > > The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the > pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. There was a > proposal > from Iran, I guess to have only 2 from each sector, not 5. The Chair sort > of > insisted that they be 5 each, provided that the status of these non-gov > actors > are lower than the gov members. > > So OECD governments, let's say became somewhat relived by seeing at least > there be some members from CS, PS and tech and academia inside the WG, > not with the full membership, nor the "observer" - can participate in the > debate > and deliberations, but not at the decision making. Well that's how > most governments > accept. > > So then the focus of the debate went to the "rules of the procedures > of ECOSOC and > CSTD" - how much to impose these to non-gov actors. > "in accordance with" was sort of first version, then Greece proposed: > "bearing in mind"... at one time it was dropped, then came back, then > Mexico questioned > the secretariat if there is any CSTD rules of procedure. The answer was No, > only > functional commissions of the CSTD has rules of procedures, but not CSTD > itself. > So they dropped reference of CSTD and only left ECOSOC. > > There are some details where the devils or the angels may reside but no one > had the energy to visit the details - say how to select the civil > society members, > etc. > > Of course, the outcome is far from satisfactory. Better than the Dec 6 > decision? > I think yes. Worth to pull the plug? I don't think so, at least at > this stage, no. > > Frankly, we did not have that much coherent move, yet. We do not have > active work of strategy, outreach and work plan, yet. I mean it is not too > late > to work on these and define what exactly we like to gain, nor not to lose > and > then head to the next round. > > Simply boycotting AT THIS STAGE doesn't give much gain, IMHO. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > (gimme a break). > > > 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > > Dear all, > > Is anybody able to say what finally happened ? > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint > > Exupéry > > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 17 17:23:54 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:23:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Have a break Izumi - and thanks so much for incredibly good reporting. I agree - not a boycott at this stage. But those guys sure are showing themselves to be troglodytes. Ian Peter > From: Izumi Aizu > Reply-To: , Izumi Aizu > Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:07:13 +0900 > To: Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE > Cc: > Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? > > Sorry for the delay. Now back at the hotel, munching some bread. > > Well, as I put in the previous thread, Round III, they all reached the > consensus of the text. Both sides kind of compromised for some words > against other. > > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG, > but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second > class citizen" > which has been used many times during the negotiation. > > The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the > pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. There was a proposal > from Iran, I guess to have only 2 from each sector, not 5. The Chair sort of > insisted that they be 5 each, provided that the status of these non-gov actors > are lower than the gov members. > > So OECD governments, let's say became somewhat relived by seeing at least > there be some members from CS, PS and tech and academia inside the WG, > not with the full membership, nor the "observer" - can participate in the > debate > and deliberations, but not at the decision making. Well that's how > most governments > accept. > > So then the focus of the debate went to the "rules of the procedures > of ECOSOC and > CSTD" - how much to impose these to non-gov actors. > "in accordance with" was sort of first version, then Greece proposed: > "bearing in mind"... at one time it was dropped, then came back, then > Mexico questioned > the secretariat if there is any CSTD rules of procedure. The answer was No, > only > functional commissions of the CSTD has rules of procedures, but not CSTD > itself. > So they dropped reference of CSTD and only left ECOSOC. > > There are some details where the devils or the angels may reside but no one > had the energy to visit the details - say how to select the civil > society members, > etc. > > Of course, the outcome is far from satisfactory. Better than the Dec 6 > decision? > I think yes. Worth to pull the plug? I don't think so, at least at > this stage, no. > > Frankly, we did not have that much coherent move, yet. We do not have > active work of strategy, outreach and work plan, yet. I mean it is not too > late > to work on these and define what exactly we like to gain, nor not to lose and > then head to the next round. > > Simply boycotting AT THIS STAGE doesn't give much gain, IMHO. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > (gimme a break). > > > 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle : >> Dear all, >> Is anybody able to say what finally happened ? >> Best >> Bertrand >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> > > > > -- >                         >> Izumi Aizu << > >           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >                                   Japan >                                  * * * * * >            << Writing the Future of the History >> >                                 www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 17 17:28:03 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:28:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, to be frank and maybe naiive, the discussion today here in Geneva, following the decision on Dec 6 on WG composition, I have slightly different view than the one expressed in this article. The majority of the government people gathered here today, in Geneva are the mission people, foreign affairs people, and also those in charge of CSTD, Science and Technology for development, but not much of those from ICT, Internet policy, IGF - type of people. Their interest and focus is to keep the government control of power in general, rather than directly aiming at the taking control of the Internet (governance). Yes there are some member states who have more focus and understanding of their interest in putting more control on Internet resource management, I did not have the impression that they are targeting that per se here. Maybe that is the major focus of Enhanced Cooperation, but not IGF. Even those governments trying to reserve their sovereign rights to make decisions, over non-gov entities, there is no strong push to exclude us, in the room, but they don't accept that non-govs will have the equal right in making decisions. They did not bother to define what kind of decisions though. So while I have no illusion about certain governments to seek the power and control over their people, directly combining that with CIR control in an emotional manner may not be that productive. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 17:34:16 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:34:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17 Dec 2010, at 17:23, Ian Peter wrote: > Have a break Izumi - and thanks so much for incredibly good reporting. yes thank you. > > I agree - not a boycott at this stage. But those guys sure are showing > themselves to be troglodytes. I am not sure. Maybe not a boycott, but i think a plan B is still needed. Accepting without some sort of action lowers the bar from WGIG and IGF, a loss that will be hard to recuperate from. 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 17:45:09 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:45:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <3D35B9EB-290E-470D-97DA-29B08F78F853@acm.org> Message-ID: thanks so much izumi for your work and effort to report back! Congratulations! Reading fast i believe it was an outcome we can work with. On 12/17/10, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, sorry for not able to report from the room for the final outcome. > The network connection lost, in the room. No projection available, then > the Screen went up. > > Here follows is the final text agreed by all. Well, we didn't endorse > explicitly > but we did not protest against it. They circulated the final draft, printed, > as version three, around 21:04, and it had one round of discussion, almost > changed "The outcome" to "The report" in the last line, and replaced > "reached" > with "adopted". > > I will put my impression in a separate thread. > Now it's almost 11 pm, Friday. Long day indeed, but not the longest ;-). > > izumi > > ---------------- > > The Chair of the CSTD establishes a Working Group of 15 member states > plus the five member states which hosted the IG meetings plus the two > member states which hosted WSIS. This Working Group will seek, > compile, and review inputs from all member states and all other > stakeholders on improvement of the Internet Governance Forum, in an > open and inclusive manner throughout the process. > > The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively > participate in the Working Group, bearing in mind the established > rules of procedure of the ECOSOC, who will remain fully engaged > throughout the process: > - 5 Business community > - 5 Civil society > - 5 Technical and academic community > - 5 intergovernmental organizations > > Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227, and 2010/228, > maximum possible assistance, diversity of ideas, and the equal > representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the > Working Group should be ensured in consultation with the stakeholders. > > The report of this Working Group will be adopted by consensus. > > END > > ------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for 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 From ocl at gih.com Fri Dec 17 18:03:03 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:03:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0BEC27.4020904@gih.com> Izumi, Le 17/12/2010 22:07, Izumi AIZU a écrit : > Sorry for the delay. Now back at the hotel, munching some bread. Thank you for your breathtaking and intricate reporting today. I must admit I was glued to my screen for a while. I had a feeling of history being written. One of many clashes to come, because the Internet bottom-up multi-stakeholder model is just so incompatible with some powers out there. What I have found most interesting, is the cleavage between pro-MSH & anti-MSH, and who those actors are. If I may suggest, one of the jobs for those people living in some of those "anti-MSH countries" should actively educate their government officials about the benefits of MSH. Easier said than done, I know. Best wishes, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 18:17:58 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:17:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Izumi Message-ID: Izumi, Joining others in expressing my deepest thanks for the incredible job you did today. Those of us who were not able to be present in Geneva (and raged against the absence of any transcription) could follow things as they unfolded thanks to your perfect reporting. Kudos. rest well deserved. Final formulations are far from satisfactory (it is clearly a setback from WGIG) but contain some positive elements. The number of non-state actors is one of them and the Chair deserves credit for having kept this all along. As for the rest, there are probably sufficient ambiguities that can be exploited. "Bearing in mind" is one of them. Furthermore, the provision that the report must be adopted by consensus does not really clarify how much endorsement is needed from the non-governmental participants. And everything will be in the hands of those selected, depending upon their pugnacity, as experience proves that in multi-stakeholder discussions, most ideas come from the "bottom". Finally, several governments have insisted on the necessary openness of the process and this should be kept in mind to allow interaction through this list with the members (sorry, the "invited participants") in the Group. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 18:38:36 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 04:38:36 +0500 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Izumi, I would like to join Bertrand and all of our members in thanking you for carrying out such an important task and being there! Great work old friend! I also share Bertrand's concerns and am keeping my fingers crossed on this. Best Fouad On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Izumi, > Joining others in expressing my deepest thanks for the incredible job you > did today. Those of us who were not able to be present in Geneva (and raged > against the absence of any transcription) could follow things as they > unfolded thanks to your perfect reporting. Kudos. rest well deserved. > Final formulations are far from satisfactory (it is clearly a setback from > WGIG) but contain some positive elements. The number of non-state actors is > one of them and the Chair deserves credit for having kept this all along. > As for the rest, there are probably sufficient ambiguities that can be > exploited. "Bearing in mind" is one of them. Furthermore, the provision that > the report must be adopted by consensus does not really clarify how much > endorsement is needed from the non-governmental participants. And everything > will be in the hands of those selected, depending upon their pugnacity, as > experience proves that in multi-stakeholder discussions, most ideas come > from the "bottom". > Finally, several governments have insisted on the necessary openness of the > process and this should be kept in mind to allow interaction through this > list with the members (sorry, the "invited participants") in the Group. > Best > Bertrand > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Dec 17 18:44:39 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:44:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> On 18/12/2010, at 6:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> I agree - not a boycott at this stage. But those guys sure are showing >> themselves to be troglodytes. > > I am not sure. > > Maybe not a boycott, but i think a plan B is still needed. Accepting without some sort of action lowers the bar from WGIG and IGF, a loss that will be hard to recuperate from. (From Kuala Lumpur International Airport, en route to Perth.) I agree, we should also talk to our business and technical community stakeholder friends about establishing a parallel high-level non-governmental Internet governance process. Izumi do you think so? -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 20:17:41 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:17:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> Message-ID: hello, sounds some media are interested by the issue under titles like "UN to control Internet" http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet?sc=tw&cc=share Regards Rafik 2010/12/18 Jeremy Malcolm > On 18/12/2010, at 6:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >> I agree - not a boycott at this stage. But those guys sure are showing > >> themselves to be troglodytes. > > > > I am not sure. > > > > Maybe not a boycott, but i think a plan B is still needed. Accepting > without some sort of action lowers the bar from WGIG and IGF, a loss that > will be hard to recuperate from. > > (From Kuala Lumpur International Airport, en route to Perth.) I agree, we > should also talk to our business and technical community stakeholder friends > about establishing a parallel high-level non-governmental Internet > governance process. Izumi do you think so? > > -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 20:28:59 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:28:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to Aizu-san for live-reporting and giving us a real-time description of discussion, that allowed IGC members to react and share comments and feedback in real-time. I think that we should keep such practice and having more people participating in-situ if possible . resending the article again n.pr/fHNHkL which I found on twitter (there are many people interested by Internet Policy but necessarily aware about development on IGF) , I think that we should use twitter and other social channels in addition to contact media for giving our point of views, I find that many of them are ill-informed and IGC can help to present CS perspective Regards Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle > Izumi, > > Joining others in expressing my deepest thanks for the incredible job you > did today. Those of us who were not able to be present in Geneva (and raged > against the absence of any transcription) could follow things as they > unfolded thanks to your perfect reporting. Kudos. rest well deserved. > > Final formulations are far from satisfactory (it is clearly a setback from > WGIG) but contain some positive elements. The number of non-state actors is > one of them and the Chair deserves credit for having kept this all along. > > As for the rest, there are probably sufficient ambiguities that can be > exploited. "Bearing in mind" is one of them. Furthermore, the provision that > the report must be adopted by consensus does not really clarify how much > endorsement is needed from the non-governmental participants. And everything > will be in the hands of those selected, depending upon their pugnacity, as > experience proves that in multi-stakeholder discussions, most ideas come > from the "bottom". > > Finally, several governments have insisted on the necessary openness of the > process and this should be kept in mind to allow interaction through this > list with the members (sorry, the "invited participants") in the Group. > > Best > > Bertrand > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 17 21:25:56 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:25:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> On Dec 17, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: hello, sounds some media are interested by the issue under titles like "UN to control Internet" http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet?sc=tw&cc=share Regards Rafik I could be mistaken, but it appears to reference the DESA "Open Consultations on the process towards Enhanced Cooperation on International Public Policy Issues pertaining to the Internet" on December 14th as opposed to CSTD working group on IGF improvement. The ISOC quote is clearly from their Enhanced Cooperation submission. I point it out only in case someone speaks to member of the press, you might want to refer them to both of the hearings that occurred this week as key events. As we're seeing similar direction in multiple UN forums, the article's sentiment is likely equally applicable in either case... ;-) /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 21:35:15 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:35:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hi John, I could be mistaken, but it appears to reference the DESA "Open > Consultations on the process towards Enhanced Cooperation on International > Public Policy Issues pertaining to the Internet" on December 14th as opposed > to CSTD working group on IGF improvement. The ISOC quote is clearly from > their Enhanced Cooperation submission. I point it out only in case someone > speaks to member of the press, you might want to refer them to both of the > hearings that occurred this week as key events. > the timing is interesting as the article was posted in 17th December, ( there is also this post http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/plans-panel-governments-set-policies-policing-internet/ ) > > As we're seeing similar direction in multiple UN forums, the article's > sentiment is likely equally applicable in either case... ;-) > /John > > we cannot complain that media and journalists are confused in particular if they are not following IG stuff closely :) Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Sat Dec 18 01:50:55 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:50:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for very kind words. Though the outcome is not as close to what we really want, it was not "zero" compared with the awful decision on Dec 6 to shut out any member in the WG. I just did what I am supposed to do. There are areas for improvement for our work, and for that I think we need more participation, engagement of IGC members visible to other stakeholders. Anyway, off for some rest (not quite yet) izumi 2010/12/18, Rafik Dammak : > Thanks to Aizu-san for live-reporting and giving us a real-time description > of discussion, that allowed IGC members to react and share comments and > feedback in real-time. I think that we should keep such practice and having > more people participating in-situ if possible . > > resending the article again n.pr/fHNHkL which I found > on twitter (there are many people interested by Internet Policy but > necessarily aware about development on IGF) , I think that we should use > twitter and other social channels in addition to contact media for giving > our point of views, I find that many of them are ill-informed and IGC can > help to present CS perspective > > Regards > > Rafik Dammak > Twitter: @rafik > Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak > > > > 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> Izumi, >> >> Joining others in expressing my deepest thanks for the incredible job you >> did today. Those of us who were not able to be present in Geneva (and >> raged >> against the absence of any transcription) could follow things as they >> unfolded thanks to your perfect reporting. Kudos. rest well deserved. >> >> Final formulations are far from satisfactory (it is clearly a setback from >> WGIG) but contain some positive elements. The number of non-state actors >> is >> one of them and the Chair deserves credit for having kept this all along. >> >> As for the rest, there are probably sufficient ambiguities that can be >> exploited. "Bearing in mind" is one of them. Furthermore, the provision >> that >> the report must be adopted by consensus does not really clarify how much >> endorsement is needed from the non-governmental participants. And >> everything >> will be in the hands of those selected, depending upon their pugnacity, as >> experience proves that in multi-stakeholder discussions, most ideas come >> from the "bottom". >> >> Finally, several governments have insisted on the necessary openness of >> the >> process and this should be kept in mind to allow interaction through this >> list with the members (sorry, the "invited participants") in the Group. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Dec 18 01:58:24 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:58:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Avri, Jeremy and all, I quite agree that we need Plan B or X, something to put our own process and ideas to flow, sort of in parallel to the official WG. And also that be better with partnership with other stakeholders, not only say easy ones close to us, but also more of outreach to extend. I am not sure "educate" is the right word to talk to the government people who do not agree with MSH. There are varying degrees of eavluation or acceptance of MSH among governments and we should be a little careful to deal with them IMHO. The core claim some of these gov people made is that they cannot admit equal fotting in the decision making of something formal, such as UN ECOSOC, CSTD etc. In any case, what is clear is we need MORE work, both intellectual and physical. best, izumi 2010/12/18, Jeremy Malcolm : > On 18/12/2010, at 6:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> I agree - not a boycott at this stage. But those guys sure are showing >>> themselves to be troglodytes. >> >> I am not sure. >> >> Maybe not a boycott, but i think a plan B is still needed. Accepting >> without some sort of action lowers the bar from WGIG and IGF, a loss that >> will be hard to recuperate from. > > (From Kuala Lumpur International Airport, en route to Perth.) I agree, we > should also talk to our business and technical community stakeholder friends > about establishing a parallel high-level non-governmental Internet > governance process. Izumi do you think so? > > -- > 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. > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Sat Dec 18 02:52:10 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:52:10 +0500 Subject: [governance] Thanks to Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01b601cb9e88$7ed043b0$7c70cb10$@net> Izumi have been phenomenal in keeping the whole caucus updated and informed on the developments almost in real time. Thanks Izumi. Yours is a fantastic idea Rafik, Will suggest that IGC members may like to agree on a common hashtag (smaller in words) and then also inform other stakeholders about it. So people privileged to physically attend important IG events can tweet live. We have tried live tweeting for a few events and it has been very useful. It actually helps develop a good account of the whole proceedings in the end. Once the hashtag is agreed all of us can help to propagate it widely. Just to give an example, all the tweets around Internet freedom, censorship and blocking are archived at #netfreedom J Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 6:29 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: Izumi AIZU Subject: Re: [governance] Thanks to Izumi Thanks to Aizu-san for live-reporting and giving us a real-time description of discussion, that allowed IGC members to react and share comments and feedback in real-time. I think that we should keep such practice and having more people participating in-situ if possible . resending the article again n.pr/fHNHkL which I found on twitter (there are many people interested by Internet Policy but necessarily aware about development on IGF) , I think that we should use twitter and other social channels in addition to contact media for giving our point of views, I find that many of them are ill-informed and IGC can help to present CS perspective Regards Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle Izumi, Joining others in expressing my deepest thanks for the incredible job you did today. Those of us who were not able to be present in Geneva (and raged against the absence of any transcription) could follow things as they unfolded thanks to your perfect reporting. Kudos. rest well deserved. Final formulations are far from satisfactory (it is clearly a setback from WGIG) but contain some positive elements. The number of non-state actors is one of them and the Chair deserves credit for having kept this all along. As for the rest, there are probably sufficient ambiguities that can be exploited. "Bearing in mind" is one of them. Furthermore, the provision that the report must be adopted by consensus does not really clarify how much endorsement is needed from the non-governmental participants. And everything will be in the hands of those selected, depending upon their pugnacity, as experience proves that in multi-stakeholder discussions, most ideas come from the "bottom". Finally, several governments have insisted on the necessary openness of the process and this should be kept in mind to allow interaction through this list with the members (sorry, the "invited participants") in the Group. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 18 04:01:48 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:01:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] On the video of the consultations on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16381920.81636.1292662846245.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d07> Hi Bertrand and all Bertrand wrote : You know as well as others on the list, the custumary extravaganza of this personage ("the Chinese Bolton" as he's nicknamed -at the best- by his colleagues) and his undiplomatic escapades. Not really reassuring for reconciling such different positions ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 17/12/10 18:48 > De : "Bertrand de La Chapelle" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] On the video of the consultations on enhanced cooperation > > Dear all, > While following the drama unfolding in Geneva on the group of the chair of the CSTD regarding IGF improvements, I finally took the time to watch the video of the December 14 consultations in New York on enhanced cooperation (visible at : http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html). > I encourage everybody to do the same, not so much for the interventions of the participants (relatively predictable) but to pay attention to the - very lengthy - interventions of UN Undersecretary General Sha in between the various speeches from the floor. A very interesting illustration of a high-ranking UN official's "neutrality" :-(  > Enjoy.  > B. > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Dec 18 06:10:58 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:10:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5 In-Reply-To: References: <8563FC56-7F41-4F3A-B974-8739946D13CC@graduateinstitute.ch> <3D35B9EB-290E-470D-97DA-29B08F78F853@acm.org> Message-ID: <50285E9C-59EE-4CFA-8D58-7936AE188956@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi 3 points on next steps On Dec 17, 2010, at 10:54 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > The Chair of the CSTD establishes a Working Group of 15 member states > plus the five member states which hosted the IG meetings plus the two > member states which hosted WSIS. This Working Group will seek, > compile, and review inputs from all member states and all other > stakeholders on improvement of the Internet Governance Forum, in an > open and inclusive manner throughout the process. > > The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively > participate in the Working Group, bearing in mind the established > rules of procedure of the ECOSOC, who will remain fully engaged > throughout the process: > - 5 Business community > - 5 Civil society > - 5 Technical and academic community > - 5 intergovernmental organizations > > Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227, and 2010/228, > maximum possible assistance, diversity of ideas, and the equal > representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the > Working Group should be ensured in consultation with the stakeholders. I asked for the last bit and stressed that it'd be important when trying to get overall balance across the 5+5+5 selections if stakeholders were actively consulted rather than being presented with black box decisions from NY, as per the MAG. As there was agreement on this, hopefully the CSTD secretariat will be coming back to us before finalizing selections. We might want to follow up with Mongi. > > The report of this Working Group will be adopted by consensus. When I left at 21:15 they were going in circles on this, glad to see it wasn't watered down. The earlier formulation said only that decisions would be made by the 22 member states, which reinforced the intergovern-mentality and left the door open to majority vote recommendations. Since nongovernmentals can participate but are not WG members, it may be important to coordinate more than we often do with friendly governments whose consensus will be required. Aside from US/EU/Canada/Switzerland, Chile and Mexico were supportive, Mozambique and Tunisia (!) at times too. Not sure who will end up on the WG but those are channels. With an eye toward any future lobbying etc, at yesterday's meeting, proponents of a purely intergovernmental WG included India, Iran, South Africa (the three most ardent), Egypt, Brazil, China, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Cuba. Most also wanted to set low limits on the number of nongovernmental "guests" and/or to subject them to restrictive ECOSOC rules of participation, i.e. speak when the chair thinks it's worth hearing from you. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Dec 18 07:02:48 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:02:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work. If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. >From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be. In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government. In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us. Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi 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 From avri at acm.org Sat Dec 18 09:24:52 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:24:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the observers may be worth thinking through. a. On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Hi everybody > > back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work. > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. > > From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. > > Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. > > With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be. > > In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government. > > In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. > > But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. > > Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us. > > Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi > > 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 10:43:57 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:13:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: > > > > 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> >> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but >> unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and >> MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 >> decision. >> >> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within >> this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really >> open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members >> of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the >> right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning >> proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and >> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be >> tested out. > > Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) Izumi wrote In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG,but *not > as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second **class > citizen*" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, > EU and other *MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the **pure > equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG.* If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly Governments, to start with. I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But > since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still > seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C. > It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules > for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the > stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their > processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have > decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? > > Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to > make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the > Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to > make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called > 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. > > I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the > observers may be worth thinking through. > > a. > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > > > Hi everybody > > > > back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a > lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the > whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to > follow exactly what happened. Great work. > > > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but > unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and > MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 > decision. > > > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within > this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really > open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members > of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the > right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning > proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and > counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be > tested out. > > > > From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can > not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion > before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil > Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the > summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and > "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. > However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the > composition of the WGIG. > > > > Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments > but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the > very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully > packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS > friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments > of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the > establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated > alternatives without a convincing rationale. > > > > With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the > unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the > new group will be. > > > > In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 > decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an > alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include > also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more > legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a > government. > > > > In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that > we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 > elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle > Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally > in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were > rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new > political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF > improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as > a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS > friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions > and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the > ECOSOC. > > > > But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. > Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting > takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the > working method of the UNCSTD group. > > > > Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - > is ahead of us. > > > > Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi > > > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 18 13:33:49 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:33:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Thanks to Izumi In-Reply-To: <01b601cb9e88$7ed043b0$7c70cb10$@net> References: <01b601cb9e88$7ed043b0$7c70cb10$@net> Message-ID: <573597.70284.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Thank You Izumi Your reporting made us all feel like we were there. I appreciate it !! Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ________________________________ From: Shahzad Ahmad To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rafik Dammak Cc: Izumi AIZU Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 11:52:10 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Thanks to Izumi Izumi have been phenomenal in keeping the whole caucus updated and informed on the developments almost in real time. Thanks Izumi. Yours is a fantastic idea Rafik, Will suggest that IGC members may like to agree on a common hashtag (smaller in words) and then also inform other stakeholders about it. So people privileged to physically attend important IG events can tweet live. We have tried live tweeting for a few events and it has been very useful. It actually helps develop a good account of the whole proceedings in the end. Once the hashtag is agreed all of us can help to propagate it widely. Just to give an example, all the tweets around Internet freedom, censorship and blocking are archived at #netfreedom J Best wishes and regards Shahzad From:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 6:29 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: Izumi AIZU Subject: Re: [governance] Thanks to Izumi Thanks to Aizu-san for live-reporting and giving us a real-time description of discussion, that allowed IGC members to react and share comments and feedback in real-time. I think that we should keep such practice and having more people participating in-situ if possible . resending the article again n.pr/fHNHkL which I found on twitter (there are many people interested by Internet Policy but necessarily aware about development on IGF) , I think that we should use twitter and other social channels in addition to contact media for giving our point of views, I find that many of them are ill-informed and IGC can help to present CS perspective Regards Rafik Dammak Twitter: @rafik Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak 2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle Izumi, Joining others in expressing my deepest thanks for the incredible job you did today. Those of us who were not able to be present in Geneva (and raged against the absence of any transcription) could follow things as they unfolded thanks to your perfect reporting. Kudos. rest well deserved. Final formulations are far from satisfactory (it is clearly a setback from WGIG) but contain some positive elements. The number of non-state actors is one of them and the Chair deserves credit for having kept this all along. As for the rest, there are probably sufficient ambiguities that can be exploited. "Bearing in mind" is one of them. Furthermore, the provision that the report must be adopted by consensus does not really clarify how much endorsement is needed from the non-governmental participants. And everything will be in the hands of those selected, depending upon their pugnacity, as experience proves that in multi-stakeholder discussions, most ideas come from the "bottom". Finally, several governments have insisted on the necessary openness of the process and this should be kept in mind to allow interaction through this list with the members (sorry, the "invited participants") in the Group. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 18 14:46:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:46:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I agree we should not wait. When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global working group isn't that complicated. My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of course we would treat them equally. If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report. This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) Izumi wrote In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly Governments, to start with. I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: Hi Wolfgang, Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the observers may be worth thinking through. a. On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Hi everybody > > back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work. > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. > > From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. > > Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. > > With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be. > > In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government. > > In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. > > But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. > > Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us. > > Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 18 14:54:02 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:54:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> , <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I pretty much can agree with this, though I think - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally). I.e lets lead by example. I a. On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I agree we should not wait. > > When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global working group isn't that complicated. > > My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of course we would treat them equally. > > If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report. > > This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? > > While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B. > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps > > 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. > > Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) > > Izumi wrote > > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. > > If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly Governments, to start with. > > I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? > > Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. > > I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the observers may be worth thinking through. > > a. > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> Hi everybody >> >> back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work. >> >> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. >> >> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. >> >> From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. >> >> Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. >> >> With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be. >> >> In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government. >> >> In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. >> >> But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. >> >> Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us. >> >> Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dmiloshevic at afilias.info Sat Dec 18 14:56:46 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:56:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> , <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <69079E4A-F47E-4B0B-8A4E-25395D5B523B@afilias.info> Agree with Avri. Desiree -- On 18 Dec 2010, at 19:54, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I pretty much can agree with this, though I think > > - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community > - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any > willing participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest > treated equally). I.e lets lead by example. I > > a. > > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I agree we should not wait. >> >> When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I >> was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote >> instant global working group isn't that complicated. >> >> My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with >> interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored >> guests. But of course we would treat them equally. >> >> If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and >> Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the >> best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up >> once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, >> and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual >> thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report. >> >> This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the >> UN WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing >> proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, >> right? >> >> While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it >> seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced >> cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining >> our own mandate, at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the >> 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II >> to plan B. >> >> Lee >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> ] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps >> >> 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > >> >> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced >> but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not >> the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is >> better than the Dec. 6 decision. >> >> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics >> within this new WG and their working methodology. If the >> discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation >> between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor >> role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the >> right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move >> backwards or to create something which is unworkable and >> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This >> has to be tested out. >> >> Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of >> this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the >> working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting >> yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was >> progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And >> there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary >> and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas >> for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed >> doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) >> >> Izumi wrote >> >> In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the >> WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as >> "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the >> negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not >> really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors >> in the WG. >> >> If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate >> that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group >> with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH >> friendly Governments, to start with. >> >> I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria > >> wrote: >> >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. >> But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, >> there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, >> though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the >> governments keep going back to their rules for excluding >> stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder >> need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes? >> And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have >> decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? >> >> Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have >> worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO >> sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need >> to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened >> to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve >> things only for one group of stakeholders. >> >> I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the >> observers may be worth thinking through. >> >> a. >> >> On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi everybody >>> >>> back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent >>> where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to >>> thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled >>> people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. >>> Great work. >>> >>> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced >>> but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not >>> the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is >>> better than the Dec. 6 decision. >>> >>> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics >>> within this new WG and their working methodology. If the >>> discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation >>> between primary and secondary members of the group may play a >>> minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments >>> at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to >>> move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and >>> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This >>> has to be tested out. >>> >>> From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN >>> members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. >>> We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the >>> result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was >>> officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that >>> we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and >>> "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the >>> intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was >>> reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. >>> >>> Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the >>> governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this >>> negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed >>> doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent >>> onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly >>> governments. It was the substance and the strength of the >>> arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG >>> definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating >>> politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. >>> >>> With other words, a strong performance within the group can >>> equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what >>> the working method of the new group will be. >>> >>> In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the >>> Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was >>> to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an >>> alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which >>> would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. >>> However this is a delicate issue for a government. >>> >>> In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will >>> remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to >>> ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group >>> and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were >>> discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in >>> Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in >>> ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new >>> political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative >>> IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be >>> even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May >>> 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official >>> report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This >>> would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. >>> >>> But I think that for the moment working inside is the better >>> option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the >>> next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final >>> composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. >>> >>> Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and >>> practical - is ahead of us. >>> >>> Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Dec 18 15:40:57 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:40:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <69079E4A-F47E-4B0B-8A4E-25395D5B523B@afilias.info> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> , <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ,<69079E4A-F47E-4B0B-8A4E-25395D5B523B@afilias.info> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ok we play nice, fine ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Desiree Miloshevic [dmiloshevic at afilias.info] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:56 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps Agree with Avri. Desiree -- On 18 Dec 2010, at 19:54, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I pretty much can agree with this, though I think - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally). I.e lets lead by example. I a. On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: Hi, I agree we should not wait. When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global working group isn't that complicated. My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of course we would treat them equally. If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report. This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) Izumi wrote In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly Governments, to start with. I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: Hi Wolfgang, Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the observers may be worth thinking through. a. On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Hi everybody back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work. If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. >From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be. In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government. In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us. Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 aizu at anr.org Sat Dec 18 17:15:15 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 07:15:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <69079E4A-F47E-4B0B-8A4E-25395D5B523B@afilias.info> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree. Actually, we did something close to CS + PS + TC (tech community) + like-minded gov in Geneva this week. It was still ad hoc and not strategic but it still had good value to complement each other. I think it should lead by example, as Avri put, and also perhaps we should articulate better what exactly Civil Society promote within the Multistakeholder framework that is distinct and different from other stakeholders. For that, I really like to encourage Strategy WG led by Rafik to come up with the say mission or value statement. izumi - back in Geneva since my flight to CDG finally canceled a few hours ago! 2010/12/19 Lee W McKnight : > ok we play nice, fine > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Desiree Miloshevic [dmiloshevic at afilias.info] > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:56 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps > > Agree with Avri. > > Desiree > -- > On 18 Dec 2010, at 19:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I pretty much can agree with this, though I think > > -  it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community > - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally).  I.e lets lead by example.  I > > a. > > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree we should not wait. > > When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global working group isn't that complicated. > > My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS  + PS should lead, with interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of course we would treat them equally. > > If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks.  In the best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report. > > This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN WG...or as an alternative  path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? > > While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate,  at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks.  Or maybe a part II to plan B. > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps > > 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. > > Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new WG and their working methodology ?  It is clear that the working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) > > Izumi wrote > > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. > > If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly Governments, to start with. > > I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary.  But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C.  It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder need to accept that?   Isn't it time they change their processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? > > Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened to.  We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. > > I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the observers may be worth thinking through. > > a. > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Hi everybody > > back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work. > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. > > >From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. > > Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. > > With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be. > > In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government. > > In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report  could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. > > But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. > > Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us. > > Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi > > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 03:30:54 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:30:54 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [Air-L] Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on Internet governance Message-ID: <08CC5F3BC0224D2185DF0E8FA1297AEC@userPC> -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of jeremy hunsinger Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 9:43 AM To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on Internet governance sign the petition below, if you agree with it:) various orgs have signed it, iamcr, etc. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/igf/ > > >> From: GLIGOR1 at aol.com >> Date: December 17, 2010 7:16:25 PM EST >> >> Subject: Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on Internet governance >> >> >> Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on Internet governance >> >> 12/17/2010 07:00:00 AM >> The beauty of the Internet is that it's not controlled by any one >> group. Its governance is bottoms-up-with academics, non-profits, >> companies and governments all working to improve this technological >> wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet >> very open-a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere-it's also >> prevented vested interests from taking control. >> >> But last week the UN Committee on Science and Technology announced >> that only governments would be able to sit on a working group set up >> to examine improvements to the IGF-one of the Internet's most >> important discussion forums. This move has been condemned by the >> Internet Governance Caucus, the Internet Society (ISOC), the >> International Chamber of Commerce and numerous other >> organizations-who have published a joint letter (PDF) and launched an >> online petition to mobilize opposition. Today, I have signed that >> petition on Google's behalf because we don't believe governments >> should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet >> governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works-protecting >> users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let's >> fight to keep it that way. >> >> Posted by Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist >> Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech Live without dead time. -graffitti Paris 1968 _______________________________________________ The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.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 shahzad at bytesforall.net Sun Dec 19 09:51:59 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:51:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> , <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Fully agreed. ...and who knows things may change for good in the near future and all the work can directly feed into the main ongoing process :) Best wishes Shahzad -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:54 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps Hi, I pretty much can agree with this, though I think - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally). I.e lets lead by example. I a. On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I agree we should not wait. > > When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global working group isn't that complicated. > > My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of course we would treat them equally. > > If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report. > > This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? > > While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B. > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps > > 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. > > Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) > > Izumi wrote > > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. > > If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly Governments, to start with. > > I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? > > Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. > > I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the observers may be worth thinking through. > > a. > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> Hi everybody >> >> back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work. >> >> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision. >> >> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out. >> >> From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG. >> >> Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale. >> >> With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be. >> >> In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government. >> >> In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC. >> >> But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group. >> >> Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us. >> >> Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Sun Dec 19 11:24:53 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:24:53 -0600 Subject: [governance] Round II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am a little late in my reaction but I am a bit surprised with the Philippines' stand of a government only WG. I will take this up with ISOC PH and ask a few colleagues working in the Phil government about what's going on. Thanks Izumi for the updates. Regards, Charity On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Now the door was opened and CSTD WG meeting starting the discussion. > > Philippines, Malaysia, India, all support Gov only WG saying ECOSOC > South Africa - not set other stakeholders modality of participation > Brazil - three member states - Argentina, Chile, Costalica to nominate WG > Greece - important in the final outcome that all views are reflected, > hearing all views, > but unclear about the process. Are we talking about open consultation > process? > > talk goes on > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Charity Gamboa-Embley IGCBP10 MENA Group Tutor Diplo Foundation CharityG at diplomacy.edu Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy Science Department Chair 4008 Avenue R Lubbock, Texas 79412 cembley at esc17.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 20 05:16:22 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:16:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Message-ID: We need to map in our strategy the several boards we actually playing this game, what is at stake, what are the actors and who can be our allies in each one. I agree with Lee that we should not disregard the process of enhanced cooperation when we plan our strategy for CTSD. Depending on how EC gains shape, the IGF may become an empty forum, with reduced political meaning and impact. The States that were MSH friendly now had this position for a reason. Maybe they believe that by giving us a "bone" we will remain occupied in CSTD and forget other fora... Or maybe they are actually giving us something in CSTD to show their willingness to be allies at DESA-EC discussions. If so, what are their interests regarding EC? Is partnership in our best interest? That should all be considered. @Izumi and others that were Geneva, did the chair mention how and when the 5 people from each stakeholder group will be chosen for CSTD WG? Marilia On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Fully agreed. > > ...and who knows things may change for good in the near future and all the > work can directly feed into the main ongoing process :) > > Best wishes > Shahzad > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:54 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps > > Hi, > > I pretty much can agree with this, though I think > > - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community > - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing > participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally). > I.e lets lead by example. I > > a. > > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I agree we should not wait. > > > > When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was > only > half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global > working group isn't that complicated. > > > > My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with interested > governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of > course we would treat them equally. > > > > If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and Jeremy > etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all > possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is > semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ > or > euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there could > be a f2f meeting pre-final report. > > > > This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN > WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. > But > let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? > > > > While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems to > be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my > bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this > stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the > Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B. > > > > Lee > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M > [isolatedn at gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps > > > > 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wolfgang.kleinwaechte > r at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> > > > > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but > unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and > MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 > decision. > > > > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within > this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really > open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members > of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the > right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning > proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and > counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to > be > tested out. > > > > Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new > WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is > unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all > uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving > and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and > secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial > discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members > meet > closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) > > > > Izumi wrote > > > > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the > WG,but > not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class > citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU > and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal > footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. > > > > If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that > in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the > inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly > Governments, > to start with. > > > > I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote: > > > > Hi Wolfgang, > > > > Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But > since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still > seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan > C. > It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules > for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the > stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their > processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have > decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? > > > > Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked > to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the > Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to > make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called > 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. > > > > I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the > observers may be worth thinking through. > > > > a. > > > > On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi everybody > >> > >> back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a > lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the > whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to > follow exactly what happened. Great work. > >> > >> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but > unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and > MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 > decision. > >> > >> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within > this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really > open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members > of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the > right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning > proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and > counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to > be > tested out. > >> > >> From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can > not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this > discussion > before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own > Civil > Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of > the > summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and > "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. > However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the > composition of the WGIG. > >> > >> Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the > governments > but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the > very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was > fully > packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS > friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the > arguments > of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the > establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated > alternatives without a convincing rationale. > >> > >> With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the > unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of > the > new group will be. > >> > >> In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 > decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an > alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would > include > also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more > legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a > government. > >> > >> In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that > we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 > elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle > Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally > in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were > rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new > political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF > improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as > a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS > friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions > and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the > ECOSOC. > >> > >> But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. > Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting > takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the > working method of the UNCSTD group. > >> > >> Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - > is ahead of us. > >> > >> Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi > >> > >> 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 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cp > sr.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 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cp > sr.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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 08:34:17 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:34:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hello, not sure that will help as move .. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242264,un-talks-on-internet-regulation-labelled-offensive.aspx Regards Rafik 2010/12/18 John Curran > On Dec 17, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > hello, > > sounds some media are interested by the issue under titles like "UN to > control Internet" > > http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet?sc=tw&cc=share > > Regards > > Rafik > > > I could be mistaken, but it appears to reference the DESA "Open > Consultations on the process towards Enhanced Cooperation on International > Public Policy Issues pertaining to the Internet" on December 14th as opposed > to CSTD working group on IGF improvement. The ISOC quote is clearly from > their Enhanced Cooperation submission. I point it out only in case someone > speaks to member of the press, you might want to refer them to both of the > hearings that occurred this week as key events. > > As we're seeing similar direction in multiple UN forums, the article's > sentiment is likely equally applicable in either case... ;-) > /John > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 20 09:18:51 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:18:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: This piece of news confirms the idea that the debates about enhanced cooperation and IGF improvement cannot be seen as separate things. The hypocrisy in US gov position, for instance, can only be made clear if we put both themes together. On the one hand, they simplify the debate and cry out that governments should not control the Internet because that would give power to China, Iran and other countries with issues with free expression. On the other hand, they are hunting down Assange and shutting down wikileaks. US true concern is about EC and how other countries can undermine the status quo of US predominance, specially regarding CIR. Since US never invested in IGF and was never strong on this forum, then multistakeholderism on CSTD does not make much difference to them. With their attitude “multistakeholder friendly” in CSTD they tried to garner sympathy from CS and other stakeholders to their discourse on the EC. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > not sure that will help as move .. > > http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242264,un-talks-on-internet-regulation-labelled-offensive.aspx > > > > Regards > > Rafik > > > > 2010/12/18 John Curran > > On Dec 17, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> hello, >> >> sounds some media are interested by the issue under titles like "UN to >> control Internet" >> >> http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet?sc=tw&cc=share >> >> Regards >> >> Rafik >> >> >> I could be mistaken, but it appears to reference the DESA "Open >> Consultations on the process towards Enhanced Cooperation on International >> Public Policy Issues pertaining to the Internet" on December 14th as opposed >> to CSTD working group on IGF improvement. The ISOC quote is clearly from >> their Enhanced Cooperation submission. I point it out only in case someone >> speaks to member of the press, you might want to refer them to both of the >> hearings that occurred this week as key events. >> >> As we're seeing similar direction in multiple UN forums, the article's >> sentiment is likely equally applicable in either case... ;-) >> /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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 09:18:52 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:48:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Message-ID: Is there a possibility of a WSIS III online? Sivasubramanian M On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > We need to map in our strategy the several boards we actually playing this > game, what is at stake, what are the actors and who can be our allies in > each one. > > I agree with Lee that we should not disregard the process of enhanced > cooperation when we plan our strategy for CTSD. Depending on how EC gains > shape, the IGF may become an empty forum, with reduced political meaning and > impact. The States that were MSH friendly now had this position for a > reason. Maybe they believe that by giving us a "bone" we will remain > occupied in CSTD and forget other fora... Or maybe they are actually giving > us something in CSTD to show their willingness to be allies at DESA-EC > discussions. If so, what are their interests regarding EC? Is partnership in > our best interest? That should all be considered. > > @Izumi and others that were Geneva, did the chair mention how and when the > 5 people from each stakeholder group will be chosen for CSTD WG? > > Marilia > > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > >> Fully agreed. >> >> ...and who knows things may change for good in the near future and all the >> work can directly feed into the main ongoing process :) >> >> Best wishes >> Shahzad >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:54 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps >> >> Hi, >> >> I pretty much can agree with this, though I think >> >> - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community >> - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing >> participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally). >> I.e lets lead by example. I >> >> a. >> >> >> On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I agree we should not wait. >> > >> > When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was >> only >> half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global >> working group isn't that complicated. >> > >> > My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with interested >> governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of >> course we would treat them equally. >> > >> > If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and >> Jeremy >> etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all >> possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is >> semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ >> or >> euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there >> could >> be a f2f meeting pre-final report. >> > >> > This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN >> WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. >> But >> let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? >> > >> > While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems >> to >> be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my >> bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this >> stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the >> Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B. >> > >> > Lee >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M >> [isolatedn at gmail.com] >> > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps >> > >> > 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> > wolfgang.kleinwaechte >> r at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> >> > >> > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but >> unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG >> and >> MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. >> 6 >> decision. >> > >> > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within >> this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really >> open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary >> members >> of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the >> right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning >> proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and >> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to >> be >> tested out. >> > >> > Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new >> WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is >> unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all >> uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving >> and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and >> secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial >> discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members >> meet >> closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) >> > >> > Izumi wrote >> > >> > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the >> WG,but >> not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class >> citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU >> and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal >> footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. >> > >> > If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that >> in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the >> inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly >> Governments, >> to start with. >> > >> > I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. >> > >> > Sivasubramanian M >> > >> > Sivasubramanian M >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Wolfgang, >> > >> > Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But >> since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there >> still >> seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan >> C. >> It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules >> for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the >> stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their >> processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have >> decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? >> > >> > Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked >> to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the >> Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to >> make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called >> 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. >> > >> > I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the >> observers may be worth thinking through. >> > >> > a. >> > >> > On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Hi everybody >> >> >> >> back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a >> lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and >> the >> whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva >> to >> follow exactly what happened. Great work. >> >> >> >> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but >> unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG >> and >> MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. >> 6 >> decision. >> >> >> >> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics >> within >> this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really >> open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary >> members >> of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the >> right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning >> proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and >> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to >> be >> tested out. >> >> >> >> From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members >> can >> not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this >> discussion >> before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own >> Civil >> Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of >> the >> summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" >> and >> "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. >> However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the >> composition of the WGIG. >> >> >> >> Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the >> governments >> but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the >> very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was >> fully >> packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS >> friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the >> arguments >> of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and >> the >> establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated >> alternatives without a convincing rationale. >> >> >> >> With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize >> the >> unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of >> the >> new group will be. >> >> >> >> In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. >> 6 >> decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an >> alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would >> include >> also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more >> legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a >> government. >> >> >> >> In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember >> that >> we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 >> elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle >> Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day >> equally >> in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally >> were >> rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new >> political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF >> improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled >> as >> a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS >> friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions >> and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the >> ECOSOC. >> >> >> >> But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. >> Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting >> takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the >> working method of the UNCSTD group. >> >> >> >> Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical >> - >> is ahead of us. >> >> >> >> Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi >> >> >> >> 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> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cp >> sr.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> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cp >> sr.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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 10:58:22 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:58:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, 2010/12/20 Marilia Maciel > This piece of news confirms the idea that the debates about enhanced > cooperation and IGF improvement cannot be seen as separate things. The > hypocrisy in US gov position, for instance, can only be made clear if we put > both themes together. > hypocrisy? I can neither confirm nor deny, the mentioned initiative is led by a congresswoman not by US government, we can easily find different opinions within a same country between executive and legislative powers or even within the same government (having .ministries conducting opposite policies) for IGF there are some delegations which bring both parliamentarians and government officials and that makes more sense. other article http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/is-a-un-internet-takeover-looming-not-quite.ars the issue is going mainstream (at least beyond the usual channels), we need to be present and share IGC point of views> Regards Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 11:19:27 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:49:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Is there a possibility of a WSIS III online? > To elaborate, is there a possibility that the Civil Society together with International Organizations and all concerned non-Governmental Groups and MSH friendly govenments can organize a large online event on the scale and scope of a WSIS, in the context of the present developments? This may not necessarily be called a WSIS, but an event that could give shape to any alternate plan that requires to be considered. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> We need to map in our strategy the several boards we actually playing this >> game, what is at stake, what are the actors and who can be our allies in >> each one. >> >> I agree with Lee that we should not disregard the process of enhanced >> cooperation when we plan our strategy for CTSD. Depending on how EC gains >> shape, the IGF may become an empty forum, with reduced political meaning and >> impact. The States that were MSH friendly now had this position for a >> reason. Maybe they believe that by giving us a "bone" we will remain >> occupied in CSTD and forget other fora... Or maybe they are actually giving >> us something in CSTD to show their willingness to be allies at DESA-EC >> discussions. If so, what are their interests regarding EC? Is partnership in >> our best interest? That should all be considered. >> >> @Izumi and others that were Geneva, did the chair mention how and when the >> 5 people from each stakeholder group will be chosen for CSTD WG? >> >> Marilia >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >>> Fully agreed. >>> >>> ...and who knows things may change for good in the near future and all >>> the >>> work can directly feed into the main ongoing process :) >>> >>> Best wishes >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:54 AM >>> To: IGC >>> Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I pretty much can agree with this, though I think >>> >>> - it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community >>> - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing >>> participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated >>> equally). >>> I.e lets lead by example. I >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I agree we should not wait. >>> > >>> > When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was >>> only >>> half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global >>> working group isn't that complicated. >>> > >>> > My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with >>> interested >>> governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of >>> course we would treat them equally. >>> > >>> > If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and >>> Jeremy >>> etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all >>> possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is >>> semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ >>> or >>> euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there >>> could >>> be a f2f meeting pre-final report. >>> > >>> > This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN >>> WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. >>> But >>> let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? >>> > >>> > While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems >>> to >>> be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and >>> my >>> bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this >>> stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the >>> Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B. >>> > >>> > Lee >>> > >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >>> [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M >>> [isolatedn at gmail.com] >>> > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM >>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >>> > Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps >>> > >>> > 2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> >> wolfgang.kleinwaechte >>> r at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> >>> > >>> > If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but >>> unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG >>> and >>> MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. >>> 6 >>> decision. >>> > >>> > If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics >>> within >>> this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really >>> open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary >>> members >>> of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put >>> the >>> right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning >>> proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable >>> and >>> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to >>> be >>> tested out. >>> > >>> > Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this >>> new >>> WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is >>> unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all >>> uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards >>> preserving >>> and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and >>> secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial >>> discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members >>> meet >>> closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?) >>> > >>> > Izumi wrote >>> > >>> > In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the >>> WG,but >>> not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class >>> citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, >>> EU >>> and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure >>> equal >>> footing of non-governmental actors in the WG. >>> > >>> > If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate >>> that >>> in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the >>> inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly >>> Governments, >>> to start with. >>> > >>> > I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe. >>> > >>> > Sivasubramanian M >>> > >>> > Sivasubramanian M >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Wolfgang, >>> > >>> > Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But >>> since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there >>> still >>> seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan >>> C. >>> It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their >>> rules >>> for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the >>> stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their >>> processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they >>> have >>> decided to not listen to any of the observers comments? >>> > >>> > Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have >>> worked >>> to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to >>> the >>> Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to >>> make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so >>> called >>> 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders. >>> > >>> > I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the >>> observers may be worth thinking through. >>> > >>> > a. >>> > >>> > On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Hi everybody >>> >> >>> >> back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a >>> lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and >>> the >>> whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva >>> to >>> follow exactly what happened. Great work. >>> >> >>> >> If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but >>> unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG >>> and >>> MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. >>> 6 >>> decision. >>> >> >>> >> If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics >>> within >>> this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really >>> open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary >>> members >>> of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put >>> the >>> right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning >>> proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable >>> and >>> counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to >>> be >>> tested out. >>> >> >>> >> From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members >>> can >>> not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this >>> discussion >>> before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own >>> Civil >>> Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of >>> the >>> summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" >>> and >>> "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental >>> group. >>> However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the >>> composition of the WGIG. >>> >> >>> >> Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the >>> governments >>> but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the >>> very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was >>> fully >>> packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS >>> friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the >>> arguments >>> of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and >>> the >>> establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated >>> alternatives without a convincing rationale. >>> >> >>> >> With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize >>> the >>> unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of >>> the >>> new group will be. >>> >> >>> >> In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. >>> 6 >>> decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish >>> an >>> alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would >>> include >>> also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more >>> legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a >>> government. >>> >> >>> >> In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember >>> that >>> we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 >>> elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle >>> Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day >>> equally >>> in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally >>> were >>> rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new >>> political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF >>> improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled >>> as >>> a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS >>> friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid >>> conclusions >>> and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the >>> ECOSOC. >>> >> >>> >> But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. >>> Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting >>> takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the >>> working method of the UNCSTD group. >>> >> >>> >> Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical >>> - >>> is ahead of us. >>> >> >>> >> Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi >>> >> >>> >> 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>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cp >>> sr.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>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cp >>> sr.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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 20 11:35:55 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:35:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Keeping IG out of governmental interference is not a new argument in US gov. It dates back to Clinton´s administration with the 1997 directive that consagrates the private sector led and self-regulatory regime aimed to maintain the status quo of US dominance. US advocacy on the matter has always been ingenious and subrepticious, using proxies, specially on the private sector. There is no novelty on the news and frankly I don´t believe that the reason behind this mobilization is concern over China and Iran´s intents nor love for freedom of expression. The case Assange is a good example of the double standards used when it comes to FoE Marília On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > 2010/12/20 Marilia Maciel > > This piece of news confirms the idea that the debates about enhanced >> cooperation and IGF improvement cannot be seen as separate things. The >> hypocrisy in US gov position, for instance, can only be made clear if we put >> both themes together. >> > > hypocrisy? I can neither confirm nor deny, the mentioned initiative is led > by a congresswoman not by US government, we can easily find different > opinions within a same country between executive and legislative powers or > even within the same government (having .ministries conducting opposite > policies) > > for IGF there are some delegations which bring > both parliamentarians and government officials and that makes more sense. > > other article > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/is-a-un-internet-takeover-looming-not-quite.ars > > the issue is going mainstream (at least beyond the usual channels), we need > to be present and share IGC point of views> > > Regards > > Rafik > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Mon Dec 20 11:46:23 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:46:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4D0F885F.8000107@eff.org> I might said that I did not that wikileaks was used as an example as I said previously in this list. It is not the right moment at least for those of us who are really concerned on what is going on right with wikileaks. (and despite the great speech of Lula on Wikileaks). I wonder if they will said the same if the cables were from the Brazilian Government (and not the US). On 12/20/10 8:35 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > Keeping IG out of governmental interference is not a new argument in > US gov. It dates back to Clinton´s administration with the 1997 > directive that consagrates the private sector led and self-regulatory > regime aimed to maintain the status quo of US dominance. US advocacy > on the matter has always been ingenious and subrepticious, using > proxies, specially on the private sector. There is no novelty on the > news and frankly I don´t believe that the reason behind this > mobilization is concern over China and Iran´s intents nor love for > freedom of expression. The case Assange is a good example of the > double standards used when it comes to FoE > > Marília > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Marilia, > > 2010/12/20 Marilia Maciel > > > This piece of news confirms the idea that the debates about > enhanced cooperation and IGF improvement cannot be seen as > separate things. The hypocrisy in US gov position, for > instance, can only be made clear if we put both themes together. > > > hypocrisy? I can neither confirm nor deny, the mentioned > initiative is led by a congresswoman not by US government, we can > easily find different opinions within a same country between > executive and legislative powers or even within the same > government (having .ministries conducting opposite policies) > > for IGF there are some delegations which bring > both parliamentarians and government officials and that makes more > sense. > > other article > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/is-a-un-internet-takeover-looming-not-quite.ars > > the issue is going mainstream (at least beyond the usual > channels), we need to be present and share IGC point of views> > > Regards > > Rafik > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 20 12:36:04 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:36:04 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: References: <73DDFF4E-5D3F-40C4-9918-820ED6699068@ciroap.org> <10CA8774-FEC4-48A5-863D-A401FCE62AD5@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: A paragraph from Ars says: *"Indeed, amidst the soul-crushing boredom of the working group's meetings last week, there were some such proposals. "Representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet—specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks"* The piece of news from ars technica confuses the debate about EC with the debate in the CSTD and misinforms the publi*c. **For instance, it seems that Brazilian speech about EC took place in CSTD meeting and that they proposed to substitute the IGF for an intergov organization, which is not true. * ** *It is also not true that the Brazilian representative speech about EC gave room to believe that an intergovernmental forum should be created "in reaction to challenges such as wikileaks", as affirmed by Ars. I finally took the time to watch the video and what was said was that:* ** *"I am not in the position of making any comment on wikileaks. I want to comment on the hard of the actions that were taken after wikileaks. Those who were in favor and against the attempts to control the internet…. We don´t have a common international environment for arising this question in an appropriate manner, without tension and taking into consideration internet freedom and innovation and privacy."* * * An honest mistake by Ars? Marília On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > 2010/12/20 Marilia Maciel > > This piece of news confirms the idea that the debates about enhanced >> cooperation and IGF improvement cannot be seen as separate things. The >> hypocrisy in US gov position, for instance, can only be made clear if we put >> both themes together. >> > > hypocrisy? I can neither confirm nor deny, the mentioned initiative is led > by a congresswoman not by US government, we can easily find different > opinions within a same country between executive and legislative powers or > even within the same government (having .ministries conducting opposite > policies) > > for IGF there are some delegations which bring > both parliamentarians and government officials and that makes more sense. > > other article > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/is-a-un-internet-takeover-looming-not-quite.ars > > the issue is going mainstream (at least beyond the usual channels), we need > to be present and share IGC point of views> > > Regards > > Rafik > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 17:04:45 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:04:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5E193E5AA64E4A7AB9827C316F74541B@userPC> I think that the evidently contradictory and panicky responses from a number of sources including corporations, governments and even civil society around the Wkileaks (and related) issues strongly indicates the need for some sort of framework of general IG principles if not new institutional arrangements...and there is likely to be (and in certain areas already is) significant calls/moves to create these but from limited and self-serving positions. This would suggest the need/opportunity for something in this area to be developed within the context of "civil society" (hopefully in partnership with others--a more careful reading of the IBSA document would seem to suggest this approach as being something consistent with what they are arguing for... The current developments of the Charter of Internet Rights and Principles (one of several possible titles currently being discussed) by the Internet Rights group might provide a useful model (and perhaps launchpad) for such an enterprise. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 6:19 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rafik Dammak Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD consultations ?? This piece of news confirms the idea that the debates about enhanced cooperation and IGF improvement cannot be seen as separate things. The hypocrisy in US gov position, for instance, can only be made clear if we put both themes together. On the one hand, they simplify the debate and cry out that governments should not control the Internet because that would give power to China, Iran and other countries with issues with free expression. On the other hand, they are hunting down Assange and shutting down wikileaks. US true concern is about EC and how other countries can undermine the status quo of US predominance, specially regarding CIR. Since US never invested in IGF and was never strong on this forum, then multistakeholderism on CSTD does not make much difference to them. With their attitude "multistakeholder friendly" in CSTD they tried to garner sympathy from CS and other stakeholders to their discourse on the EC. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hello, not sure that will help as move .. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242264,un-talks-on-internet-regulation-labelle d-offensive.aspx Regards Rafik 2010/12/18 John Curran On Dec 17, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: hello, sounds some media are interested by the issue under titles like "UN to control Internet" http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Inte rnet?sc=tw &cc=share Regards Rafik I could be mistaken, but it appears to reference the DESA "Open Consultations on the process towards Enhanced Cooperation on International Public Policy Issues pertaining to the Internet" on December 14th as opposed to CSTD working group on IGF improvement. The ISOC quote is clearly from their Enhanced Cooperation submission. I point it out only in case someone speaks to member of the press, you might want to refer them to both of the hearings that occurred this week as key events. As we're seeing similar direction in multiple UN forums, the article's sentiment is likely equally applicable in either case... ;-) /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 -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Dec 20 20:57:50 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:57:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Message-ID: I think building our own strategy is very important - so that we have better coordination with other stakeholders. And, inter-relation with EC process is of course very important. I think at the moment no one knows how exactly these two tracks will proceed. It is still an open question and depends on how all stakeholders will engage. I don't think EC will define or void the value of CSTD/IGF process, rather it is a two-way game. Both affect each other and both are important. The Chair did not mention how to select the WG members, but my understanding is that they will consider the inputs given, including the 10 nominees from IGC, but at least the box is still black. I heard that Tech/academic community is asked to nominate their candidates separately now. Well, that's what 5+5+5 means. To me, some sort of "Plan C" is essential. That means, now that non-governmental stakeholders are regarded as "guest members" inside CSTD WG, these stakeholders should make their own "group" inside AND outside the WG. It will be, in the beginning at least, a coordination, not a coalition per se. And IGC should play an important role for this coordination, and also reaching out governments, both MSH friendly and not so, together. I mean at least at CSTD the level of understanding of IGF process and MSH is not so high nor deep, especially among these Geneva based mission, foreign affairs ministry people, and I wonder how much they received instructions from the capital, or gov agencies in charge of IGF. There are also some gov folks who are trying to be MSH friendly, but as Wolfgang wrote, they could not include non-gov members into the decision making process at UN, which is essentially an inter-governmental body, thus legally, they argued they cannot give equal status to non-gov actors. They are not necesarily anti-MSH, or anti-CS, but in their legal (and political) framework, they just cannot find ways to accept us as peer. For that, I think we should strengthen our argument, and how exactly MSH address this issue. Not an easy task, I think, but worth a try. I mean, is it a) because of the nature of the Internet (distributed governance, built by non-gov actors with little regulation etc.) that we argue for the MSH, or b) because of new global situation, not only addressed to Internet and Information Society areas, but something together with say environmental issues, or other trans-national issues, that requires the participation of non-gov actors to the global policy coordination as the state power in general are being reduced, or c) combination of both elements? I mainly argued with a) at the CSTD meeting, but b) is also important in larger context. izumi 2010/12/20 Marilia Maciel : > We need to map in our strategy the several boards we actually playing this > game, what is at stake, what are the actors and who can be our allies in > each one. > > I agree with Lee that we should not disregard the process of enhanced > cooperation when we plan our strategy for CTSD. Depending on how EC gains > shape, the IGF may become an empty forum, with reduced political meaning and > impact. The States that were MSH friendly now had this position for a > reason. Maybe they believe that by giving us a "bone" we will remain > occupied in CSTD and forget other fora... Or maybe they are actually giving > us something in CSTD to show their willingness to be allies at DESA-EC > discussions. If so, what are their interests regarding EC? Is partnership in > our best interest? That should all be considered. > > @Izumi and others that were Geneva, did the chair mention how and when the 5 > people from each stakeholder group will be chosen for CSTD WG? > > Marilia > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Shahzad Ahmad > wrote: >> >> Fully agreed. >> >> ...and who knows things may change for good in the near future and all the >> work can directly feed into the main ongoing process :) >> >> Best wishes >> Shahzad >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:54 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps >> >> Hi, >> >> I pretty much can agree with this, though I think >> >> -  it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community >> - it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing >> participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally). >> I.e lets lead by example.  I >> >> a. >> >> >> On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I agree we should not wait. >> > >> > When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was >> > only >> half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global >> working group isn't that complicated. >> > >> > My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS  + PS should lead, with interested >> governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of >> course we would treat them equally. >> > >> > If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and >> > Jeremy >> etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks.  In the best of all >> possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is >> semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ >> or >> euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there >> could >> be a f2f meeting pre-final report. >> > >> > This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN >> WG...or as an alternative  path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. >> But >> let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right? >> > >> > While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems >> > to >> be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my >> bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate,  at this >> stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the >> Plan B folks.  Or maybe a part II to plan B. >> > >> > Lee >> > >> > ____________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Dec 20 22:29:40 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:29:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Message-ID: By reading my note, I found this: The chair said right after the lunch break: "As chair, I listened carefully. Commonly agreed that all stakeholders should be inclusive for the WG. Here is Chair's proposal for your consideration. We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. >From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. The leadership of these organizations will be able to select representatives to join the member states of WG." She didn't say how directly, but this was what she said. I will ask the Chair/Secretariat about this. izumi > > @Izumi and others that were Geneva, did the chair mention how and when the 5 > people from each stakeholder group will be chosen for CSTD WG? > > Marilia > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 21 05:02:46 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:02:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Message-ID: <3y$moCBGtHENFAKb@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 12:29:40 on Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >The chair said right after the lunch break: > >"As chair, I listened carefully. >Commonly agreed that all stakeholders should be inclusive for the WG. >Here is Chair's proposal for your consideration. > >We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. >From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community >5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. >The leadership of these organizations will be able to select >representatives to join the member states of WG." > >She didn't say how directly, but this was what she said. That sounds like a more sensible plan than a "black box", if they are trying to get a report finished off early next year. The original roadmap said: "The vice Chair of the CSTD will call for a second [now the first - ed] face-to-face meeting of the Working Group in the first half of February 2011. The purpose of the meeting is to examine the outcome of the open and inclusive on-line and face-to-face consultations and agree on the set of recommendations that will be included in the final report of the "Drafting of the final report of the CSTD WG on IGF "A report containing recommendations as agreed by the CSTD WG on IGF, and taking into account the outcomes of the various open and inclusive consultations, will be finalized by the CSTD Secretariat and cleared by the Chair of the working group and then submitted for consideration by the CSTD at its 14th annual session, scheduled to take place in Geneva from 23-27 May 2011. This report, if endorsed by the CSTD, is to constitute an input from the Commission to the General Assembly through ECOSOC. I'm also wondering how many of the WG members will have attended IGF meetings, and is that a required qualification? No doubt we'll also be keenly awaiting the IGF's regular prep meeting on (?to be confirmed?) 23rd/24th February, where there will perhaps be some discussion of new secretariat arrangements, and possibly set a date and agenda for the Nairobi meeting - which is approaching fast. As suspected earlier this year, it's unlikely that any of the "improvements" will be in place in time for the 6th IGF, unless they are sufficiently easy to do within the current framework. Not forgetting that alongside all this we have possible "plan B/C" and a report about Enhanced CoOperatio also heading for that same ECOSOC meeting (and possibly the earlier CSTD meeting). And over in ICANN land there's the GAC/Board special meeting in February, plus new gTLDs still scheduled for launch in the early Summer. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Dec 21 05:38:09 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:38:09 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] VS: Next Steps References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi BTW did you notice that the adopted text says "international organisations" not "intergovernmental organisations". This differentiation goes back to the Geneva Plan of Action and the WGIG mandate in C6/13b "...involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums". "International organisations" next to "intergovernmental organisations" came into the WSIS language to accomodate both ITU (intergovernmnetal) and ICANN (international). With five seats for "international organisations" this could be - inter alia - ICANN, IETF, ISOC, NRO, Article 19. Furhtermore in the other category it says "academic and technical community" which includes not only technical experts but also academics from social science, law, economics etc, that is IAMCR, GIGANET & friends. This goes back to the WGIG report which had singled out the "academic and technical community" as a special group. Para 33 said: " Furthermore, the WGIG recognized that the contribution to the Internet of the academic community is very valuable and constitutes one of its main sources of inspiration, innovation and creativity. Similarly, the technical community and its organizations are deeply involved in Internet operation, Internet standard-setting and Internet services development. Both of these groups make a permanent and valuable contribution to the stability, security, functioning and evolution of the Internet. They interact extensively with and within all stakeholder groups." Before discussing in detail a Plan B or C, we should try to form a strong "Group of the 20" which would work inside the WG on IGF Improvement and would have the capacity (and legitimacy) to produce, if needed, a "minority report" if no consensus between the (majority of) governmental and (the minority of) non-governmental members of the group is achievable until May 2011. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Di 21.12.2010 04:29 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Betreff: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps By reading my note, I found this: The chair said right after the lunch break: "As chair, I listened carefully. Commonly agreed that all stakeholders should be inclusive for the WG. Here is Chair's proposal for your consideration. We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. The leadership of these organizations will be able to select representatives to join the member states of WG." She didn't say how directly, but this was what she said. I will ask the Chair/Secretariat about this. izumi > > @Izumi and others that were Geneva, did the chair mention how and when the 5 > people from each stakeholder group will be chosen for CSTD WG? > > Marilia > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 avri at acm.org Tue Dec 21 07:56:14 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:56:14 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <80FCAAE3-3A97-4DCC-A101-EDBB5B90CF0D@acm.org> On 21 Dec 2010, at 05:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Before discussing in detail a Plan B or C, we should try to form a strong "Group of the 20" which would work inside the WG on IGF Improvement and would have the capacity (and legitimacy) to produce, if needed, a "minority report" if no consensus between the (majority of) governmental and (the minority of) non-governmental members of the group is achievable until May 2011. I actually think this begins to be the start of a possible plan C. The group of 20 is formed and it maintains its own coherency (Plan C - for a Coherent group of the other stakeholders) as a group while working with the governments in so far as they are allowed to do so. My assumption being is that the more coordinated the Group of 20 is, in terms of process, at least, the better chance they have of 'fuller' forms of participation. We have to find way to get beyond this notion that only governments can make decisions and recommendations and this group f 20 may be the ones to work on that. So, the IGC has a list of 10 possible candidates for the 5. Are any of these viable candidates for the academic and technical community in order to maximize the placement of those chosen. Did we do sufficient outreach in forming that group to have included people who are not IGC regulars in the group of proposed members? Who chooses the Academics and Technical Community members? Who chooses business? Who chooses International organizations? Probably need for the co-cordinators, or maybe someone designated by the co-cordinators, to do outreach to the movers and shakers in the other stakeholders group to see how we form/coordinate this beast. I think it might be interesting if the stakeholder groups could actually present the proposed Group of 20 to the Chair. a. > Hi > > BTW did you notice that the adopted text says "international organisations" not "intergovernmental organisations". This differentiation goes back to the Geneva Plan of Action and the WGIG mandate in C6/13b "...involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums". "International organisations" next to "intergovernmental organisations" came into the WSIS language to accomodate both ITU (intergovernmnetal) and ICANN (international). With five seats for "international organisations" this could be - inter alia - ICANN, IETF, ISOC, NRO, Article 19. Furhtermore in the other category it says "academic and technical community" which includes not only technical experts but also academics from social science, law, economics etc, that is IAMCR, GIGANET & friends. This goes back to the WGIG report which had singled out the "academic and technical community" as a special group. Para 33 said: " Furthermore, the WGIG recognized that the contribution to the Internet of the academic community is very valuable and constitutes one of its main sources of inspiration, innovation and creativity. Similarly, the technical community and its organizations are deeply involved in Internet operation, Internet standard-setting and Internet services development. Both of these groups make a permanent and valuable contribution to the stability, security, functioning and evolution of the Internet. They interact extensively with and within all stakeholder groups." > > Before discussing in detail a Plan B or C, we should try to form a strong "Group of the 20" which would work inside the WG on IGF Improvement and would have the capacity (and legitimacy) to produce, if needed, a "minority report" if no consensus between the (majority of) governmental and (the minority of) non-governmental members of the group is achievable until May 2011. > > 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Dec 21 08:22:05 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:22:05 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <80FCAAE3-3A97-4DCC-A101-EDBB5B90CF0D@acm.org> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <80FCAAE3-3A97-4DCC-A101-EDBB5B90CF0D@acm.org> Message-ID: <6Lh1GdR9nKENFAY6@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <80FCAAE3-3A97-4DCC-A101-EDBB5B90CF0D at acm.org>, at 07:56:14 on Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > >On 21 Dec 2010, at 05:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Before discussing in detail a Plan B or C, we should try to form a >>strong "Group of the 20" which would work inside the WG on IGF >>Improvement and would have the capacity (and legitimacy) to produce, >>if needed, a "minority report" if no consensus between the (majority >>of) governmental and (the minority of) non-governmental members of the >>group is achievable until May 2011. I'm wondering what the actual deadline for a report in front of the CSTD in May is. Last year, 8th March was the date that most of the internal-to-UN reports were dated. Resolutions can be proposed and written during the meeting, but input papers probably have a deadline (mindful that last year Sha's report from the Sharm Consultation, originally intended to go direct to ECOSOC, was only allowed at CSTD because no member state raised an objection to it being only available untranslated). >So, the IGC has a list of 10 possible candidates for the 5. Are any of >these viable candidates for the academic and technical community in >order to maximize the placement of those chosen. Did we do sufficient >outreach in forming that group to have included people who are not IGC >regulars in the group of proposed members? You'd have to ask the nomcom. >Who chooses the Academics and Technical Community members? If the Technical Community turn up wearing mainly 'International' badges, and Academics from this Caucus wearing 'Civil Society' badges, there's a bit of a vacuum here. >Who chooses business? ICC almost certainly. > Who chooses International organizations? This is an odd one, because it was looking difficult to find five 'Intergovernmental' organisations. If International actually excludes Intergovernmental, then as Wolfgang suggests, it's pretty easy to fill it from a group of Ecosystem players more often called "Technical community". >Probably need for the co-cordinators, or maybe someone designated by >the co-cordinators, to do outreach to the movers and shakers in the >other stakeholders group to see how we form/coordinate this beast. I >think it might be interesting if the stakeholder groups could actually >present the proposed Group of 20 to the Chair. Sounds like you need an "action committee" of at least one person from each of the four constituencies. Having worked out exactly who fits where. -- 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 iza at anr.org Tue Dec 21 08:43:26 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:43:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Consultation Meeting Note - Dec 17 [long] Message-ID: Here follows and attached is my Note for the CSTD Consultation Meeting Note - held in Geneva on Dec 17. I cannot guarantee the accuracy, but hope it tell you the context and the move. Please let me know if there should be any modification or correction. best, izumi -------------------------------- CSTD Open Consultation Meeting, Dec 18 2010, Geneva *This is an informal note and does not guarantee any accuracy Note taken by Izumi Aizu Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) www.igcaucus.org 10:05 The Secretariat made a brief report on the decision of December 6 on the composition of Working Group on the improvement of IGF. Then the Chair announced that the first 45 minutes or so will be closed to non-governmental stakeholders – governments need to discuss by themselves and asked non-governmental members to leave the room. 11:05 – Philippines ECOSOC Participation of all stakeholders are welcome All stakeholders to provide input – to WG. But WG be composed by governments Malaysia Support Philippines ECOSOC mandate is clear WG Members be only governments India Support- PH and Malaysia IGF has been multistakeholder. Tunis Agenda – they are four stakeholders groups are recognized Intergovernmental organizations be noticed South Africa Support- PH and Malaysia Russia Support- PH and Malaysia Greece Process is unclear - Iran Composition – governments only We are to abide rules and regulations – benefit from input from all stakeholders Support Philippines to Russia Chile Clarification – know from Iran, what exactly on rules and regulations of CSTD process? Iran I would pass this question to Secretariat for rules of participation of other stakeholders Secretariat Rules and regulations are subject of ECOSOC, And made additional rules – WSIS accredited entities business, civil society, academic society - can also participate In addition – those who were not existing during WSIS, can request participation of work of CSTD – we will send it ECOSOC for approval Chair Selection of stakeholders according to rules is quite clear ICC Marilyn Cade It should be multistakeholder. EU ECOSOC resolution: all stakeholders WG – in open and inclusive manner With all due respect, subordinate UN body cannot change this Participation of all stakeholders Portugal Success of IGF is due to MSH, not due to governments How to make improvements without actors Civil Society, business, academia - they are all important parts of IGF Tunisia Head of states – sprit of Tunis – equal participation of all stakeholders More important No need to change the rules agreed by head of states in 2005 in Tunis Multistakeholder spirit and work important China Agree with Philippines, Malaysia, India, South Africa and Iran WG are by governments only UK Importance of principles of diversity, Look at the intention of ECOSOC resolution – clear All stakeholders’ engagement is important There’s precedent Strongly proposes – equally balanced – gov and non government members Sri Lanka Support Philippines, India proposal This is WG of CSTD Use the interpretation of EU Mongi – clarification Participation by observers – allowed the voice of views, but not to the decisions Israel We like to give floor to non-governmental organizations first, then we reserve the right to make comments. Cuba WG be only by member states Germany Support UK and Portugal for broad participation of non governmental stakeholders, on equal numbers, same status, not observers Finland Express support UK and Portugal Egypt Reading ECOSOC resolution – MSH, inter-governmental nature be preserved WG has been already established through Chair’s decision this morning We do have guidelines – ECOSOC 2/2010 Draft Second Committee resolution – gave guidelines on how this process Para 19 – consideration of improvement of IGF – based on all member states and other stakeholders Urge to devote this session to have constructive dialogue Belgium Fully support UK, Portugal, Germany, and Finland In favor of balanced membership of all stakeholders Mozambique Feel somehow from clarification by Mongi Mozambique is not the member of CSTD My feeling – we speak about MSH, that - all members participate on equal footing – govs, civil society, academia, IGOs We would not have parity in terms of numbers, but rights to debate and participate in decision making process Let’s follow the procedure Keep it – but if not that is the case, then let everyone participate on equal footing Austria Balanced participation of all stakeholders with balanced composition in holistic manner Pakistan Support Philippines etc Slovakia Support Sri Lanka Chile More practical – appeal to your wisdom. We are seeing two interpretations as main avenues It is time for you, Chair, to narrow down to get to consensus EU No decision on establishment of this group was made. Partial decision of government group only this morning. ECOSOC resolution – invitation to CSTD Chair by ECOSOC Argentina A few participation of other stakeholders – decision be made by member states. Greece Comment on – Egypt and Mozambique Governments are observers – same as other stakeholders Egypt – we were going around circles, but try find the modality to include other stakeholders in realistic manner Leaving little time to other stakeholders if they were put at the end. Find solution. Israel Wanted to hear some civil society members who are in the room. We are here for two hours to sit and do dialogues – member states talking only – but this is not dialogue. We are establishing working group. Open and inclusive. We need to progress as world progresses. South Africa ICC is not government, they took the floor. So it was not dominated by governments! We have resolution. It is clear as EU colleague outlined. Para 40 – clear – Going against UN principle Move forward We have decided that there is inter-governmental WG South Africa participated from the day one of IGF. So we don’t want to hear that governments don’t know what they are talking about. Equal footing is no in the UN fora, yes, for IGF. US Refreshed by the level of discussion Member states have dominated the conversation until now. ECOSOC resolution –very important document. IGF be extended for five years. Para 17 – second commission - WG US to support UK, Chile, Portugal and others – equal footing for other stakeholders We are in a unique situation in CSTD – to embrace open manner a process from WSIS, embodied in Tunis Agenda- five year of success and extended So CSTD WG, that has been requested – has unique hybrid condition to work with. As Egyptian, and South Africa colleague said – We have to be creative Bit more boldly into new dimensions. How CSTD - open fashion WSIS Real room for imagination and innovation in the modality India Moving into circles, but encouraged by SA, and USA. We have to focus on the substance, not the form. Innovative and creative thing. This will not happen until and beyond the form of composition. Reality – UN rules do not allow non-governmental actors to say – in this setting. ECOSOC 2010/226 Without prejudice to established rules and procedures– to extend invitation civil society – until 2011 NGOs accredited by ECOSOC – to sit as observers to public meetings As India, we have supported vibrant multi-stakeholder But today, we are sitting inside CSTD, UN rules to be applied WGIG – participation of this group, by members of individual capacity This will put precedents in serious consequences The Rules of UN has to be respected France France support fully balanced participation of all stakeholders UNESCO Highlighted that Internet is an important enabler – to enhance free flow of information Strong supporter of IGF, Important achievements made Participation – require no accreditation Non-negotiating nature Fundamental role of MAG in insuring UNESCO strongly support to maintain essential achievements - how to raise interest – in particular, developing countries governments - all stakeholder – be insured APC Endorse what Tunisia said. This is a short-term group to come up with reports, Not a decision making body. WG made up of individuals. Just like WGIG. Consideration and accountability CSTD has to take into consideration. People-centered development Internet Society IGC (Izumi made the following intervention) Why it should be MSH My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus that has been engaged in WSIS and IGF very actively. I have been involved with Internet governance since around 1996. I was the local host of Singapore’s IFWP back in 1998, after attending first one in Washington DC and the second meeting in Geneva that summer, that essentially led the creation of ICANN. I participated all the PrepComs of the WSIS I and WSIS II. In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some government representatives started to realize that maybe it’s good idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names systems that government friends have very little clue of the very subject they are talking about. We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF. There is short history of Multistakeholder, with invisible efforts of many people inside and outside the governments and UN system. Why multistakeholder so important? The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders – and created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism. ECOSOC resolutions also clearly support this multistakeholder principle. So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC fully appreciate and support the balanced participation of all stakeholder proposed by UK and Portugal and other governments and UNESCO. Now, more specifically - This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice The consultations in IGF Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair’s summary: “that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive sprit and principles of the IGF should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD WG.” “Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector. A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost, about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it multi-stakeholder. Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the approach regarding Internet Governance. Reverting to a purely intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in May. Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it? It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a little more. Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based, inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected, telecommunication networks. The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or governance in that manner. And that’s why and how IGF is designed and implemented. --- end --- Nominet UK Martin Boyle Explaining WGIG It made recommendations. Clear parallel to UNSG creating WGIG and CSTD creating WG. ICANN Baher Esmat Echo what has been said in relation to WSIS, necessity to continue the same spirit in composition for WG. William Drake I am an academic, based in Geneva, have spent throughout WSIS and IGF and was a member of WGIG. Echo with all non-governmental actors: Focus on operational issues – Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG – gave benefits to governmental members even they were from governments. It was the cake. In a working group – equal footing – built trust and came up with effective recommendations. If you make that WG – end-up with very polarized positions between different actors, not fruitful at the end. Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration. Tunisia I didn’t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO – effectively Equal participation does not mean equal political status. Brazil Welcomes the way we found today for way out. Always respecting UN rules. Offer – suggestion regarding openness and transparency 1) Fully committed to openness Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five representative, in self-organizing way Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC 2) Committed to transparency Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting ?? agree with India. All organizations have to work according to rules. Chair Adjourn for Lunch 3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you to consider. [LUNCH BREAK] ----- After Lunch Chair Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning. As chair, I listened carefully. We commonly agreed that all stakeholders should be inclusive for the WG. Proposal for consideration: We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations. From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community, 5 from Civil Society and 5 from the business group. The leadership of these organizations will be able to select representatives to join the member states of WG. WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, WG has the limited duration. WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. Now I invite members for the contribution and look for consensus. Philippines Don’t limit the numbers of stakeholders to participate, but WG be limited to governments. Portugal Need to better understand your proposal. WG – government plus stakeholders? Chair Both governments plus stakeholders, with no difference. Portugal Then I think it’s a good proposal. Sri Lanka Civil society can have the same status as governments? Malaysia We echo with Philippines and Sri Lanka. We should not limit number of stakeholders to participate, and WG be only by governments. Cuba Same as Ph, Sri Lanka Chile Support this proposal. Members can change the rules of procedure. US We think this proposal is most worthy. Thank the modality, it’s good. We associate with all who are in favor of this proposal. India We must express our surprise to the proposal. In the morning, it was abundantly clear, putting stakeholders in same footing is not acceptable and now allowed by current procedure. We don’t think the procedure can be changed. 5 for Academic and technical community, 5 for civil society and 5 for private sector. But Tunis Agenda includes governments, civil society and private sector, and Intergovernmental organizations, where are they? Chair – I did mention that. India In any case, we align with Malaysia.. Chair – I did include IGOs. Mozambique It’s a good proposal. Iran We don't accept it. South Africa Surprising - this is advisory to Chair - not our understanding. This is CSTD WG, not comfortable with Chair's proposal. Academic and Civil society should fall under one stakeholder. We do not accept this proposal. Mongi Academics – ECOSOC adopted 2010/27? Participation of academic entities on science and technical areas are approved in addition to Civil Society. Belgium Good compromise. We are in favor of limiting the number of stakeholders Markus Kummer I want to provide some historical information: Stakeholder definition came in 2003 in WSIS process. Added Business and Civil Society, International Organizations and Inter-governmental organizations. The Reason: there are organizations running the Internet but not involved in IGOs in WGIG, in between Geneva and Tunis New category of stakeholders emerged – academic and technical community – not fully fallen into other categories, but that’s why Tunis Agenda included them, but then Diplomats did not want to include them – so under the Sub-category, but it was clear that they are separate entity, Then in IGF, technical community was dealt separately, those managing the Internet technical operation. Executive Office – no need to invite IGOs, but “open door” policy, any IGOs (ITU) and regional ones, OECD – and Arab League all participated. This arrangement worked well in pragmatic ways. WSIS Summit gave mandate to UN SG – outside of rules of procedures of UN, that do not foresee the multistakeholder in the UN Bill Drake – the success of WGIG was that allowed all stakeholders sitting in the same room and talked. Chair WG is WG of Chair. Let’s go back to ECOSOC It is to make recommendations – WG of Chair. Recommendations will be fed to CSTD for approval. We will carry, I will drop “advisory”, but it is WG of Chair of CSTD. Intergovernmental organization, Civil Society, business group, Academic and Technical community. We must agree with four. Mexico Thank you. We support this proposal. Canada Still member states have more than 50%, but it’s a good compromise and we would support. Argentina Support your proposal UK Support Brazil We had lunch in wrong place. We had to compromise – to combine the respect of UN rules and participation of stakeholders. I am impressed with some colleagues – trying to find compromise two days ago. Discussion this afternoon did not touch other important point, that is the representation of stakeholders from developing countries. I like to urge colleagues to have final consensus this afternoon. Chair Clarification. Chair’s proposal is to have consensus on the formula, and then equal representation of developing and developed in any composition. On UN rules, we have to be innovative to allow stakeholders and member states. China China is of the same opinion of Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Iran expressed. Just that. Thank you. Tunisia Legitimate concern of preserving the UN rules. Your proposal is fine – needs to be a little bit strengthened by a kind of Chapeau to guarantee – that this process – there is no equal status between member states and other stakeholders. So it will say something like: “While recognize that other stakeholders are not treated on equal footing” then add “participation of stakeholders will be on advisory basis” just to give insurance that there be no equal (political) status. Finland Join the countries in support of the proposal. Echo Canada. Egypt We like to stress 1) The issue of improving IGF came from participants of IGF in Egypt in 2009 CSTD – under ECOSOC- by establishing WG 2) Principles of openness and inclusiveness is important 3) Still concerned with the modalities of this group 4) The more we look the numbers, we go again into controversial nature – turning it into advisory one – we consider it clearly CSTD WG However, I want to propose a different proposal: We better focus on Mandate of IGF in para 72 – the language goes to ECOSOC - to establish Multistakeholder Task Forces (of three or four) - each with mandate, come-up with analysis, improve where needed - in bottom-up approach - there will be first reading of different reports in open consultation, then second reading that focus on final editing and then, submitted to CSTD - this is to avoid going on status problem of composition Chair Egypt – you were not listening to my correction – it is not advisory, but WG of Chair India We share the concern of delegations expressed. In the morning consensus be developing but we need to come with innovative model of taking stakeholders but also respect UN rules. Chair’s proposal put it back into Ground zero – because putting all stakeholders to Welcome to Tunisia and Egypt comments - expressed – unless we can discuss these models, we cannot reach – for next 2 hours be wasted. Surprised at the interpretation of ECOSOC - it is CSTD WG. Chair tasked the Vice Chair – that current chair wrote – wrote to establish the CSTD WG, questionnaire calling it as CSTD WG. Formal process already completed. Involve the work of WGs, invitees of the Chair, but not performing the same roles of CSTD members, or put them into observers, or take Tunisian or Egyptian proposals. Chair We are open – I don’t think Chair is going back to zero. When we returned – I made some proposition – you may agree or disagree with the Chair. If we have majority that stakeholders be observers – then we have to call for vote. I invite more comments – for modalities of all stakeholders, so that we can conclude this meeting Portugal Ask Para 18 of Second committee – to invite the Chair of CSTD, but not CSTD. So what is going here, I don’t understand. Thank you Chair, for inviting CSTD members, because you didn’t have to – and you can invite both member states and all other stakeholders – in order to submit to the CSTD These are the rules of ECOSOC. South Africa To reiterate our position: We are confused. On Dec 6, WG was established. The only remaining task is how to engage other stakeholders. In the morning, we had agreement. But now we have no agreement. Back to zero – we agree with India. We encourage Chair to rethink your proposal. Chair Now Madam Chair will rethink the proposal to go forward. The resolution the Chair of WG to establish in an open and inclusive manner a Working Group which would compile and seek for inputs for all member states and other stakeholders - inline with Tunis Agenda. Are we on consensus on this? Philippines This is WG of commission, but not of Chair. If this is WG of Chair, the Chair can do anything Chair Therefore, the WG is of CSTD? That work is concluded? EU Mandate was given by ECOSOC – for the Chair to setup such group. We don’t have to decide – whether in the framework of CSTD or not… The only thing which counts is para 30 of ECOSOC resolution US We are in interesting phase of conversation. I would disagree – who said we are drifted from morning. Making formula of practical working group. It is the CSTD Working Group. I don’t think we will go back. Chile Most important is the outcome. The more we restrict, the outcome is also restricted. In this case, civil society and different modality – in Tunis agenda – to have cross-cutting participation – everyone on equal footing. Greece On Egypt proposal (?) 22 gov members and other stakeholders will make reports – go refinement – then go to governmental approval, then goes to CSTD. I think it was an interesting idea. Switzerland Closer to agreement – hopefully. We urge people not to go back to interpretations of text. My delegation had clearly understood – 100% copy and paste of text that created WGIG. Go forward with the solution we have now. We are ready to join. If that does not fly, then we will join Greece to consider proposal from Egypt South Africa Support proposal from Egypt UK Tunisian proposal, interesting. Just quote ECOSOC text language – Chair – to invite members - not go into status, CSTD WG or not. Chile’s comment – outcome is important. We should have consolidated MSH framework. If we fragment, we have the risk. Focused WG, language taking ECOSOC language as Chapeau. Iran We can move on – to resolve this issue. Let’s not focus on some difference, but build on common grounds. That’s how we can move, on the basis of some proposals. I agree with what UK said, but with one addition – acceptable to all of us propose to add: “in conformity of all the rules and regulations of ECOSOC, these stakeholders are invited” Austria I agree that nothing is defined until everything is defined. Second proposal – Egypt/Greece to discuss EU “Pursue the rules and regulations” in French – it leads open to what is applied, but not violate these rules, or vaguer reference to these rules Council of Europe We have invested considerably to IGF. To have common platform bring stakeholders in equal footing IGC (called by Chair, even Izumi did not request for the floor) Equal amount of frustration should be fine. It’s not there yet – we want equal number to the governments. Our colleagues were expressing some frustration, but the Chair’s proposal is in the good direction. If we cannot reach the consensus them Egypt proposal is interesting. Chair I ask Tunisia and UK, and Iran and India to come up with amendments to my proposal – in15 minutes. 17:00 Chair I will invite Tunisia. Tunisia It was really a hard task. Ask UK to read the text as they are the English native. UK – proposal Chapeau to Chair’s proposal: “The Chair of CSTD decides on an exceptional basis and without prejudice to the rules and the procedure of the function of the commission and the ECOSOC , to establish the Working Group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and on all of the stakeholders on improvement of IGF - in open and inclusive manner throughout the process, composed the following” Iran “Following stakeholders are invited by the Chair of CSTD to participate in the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvement, in accordance with the established rules of procedure of the ECOSOC and the CSTD. It would be 2 from Private Sector, 2 from Civil Society, 2 from IGOs and 2 from International Organizations and also we - pursuant to CSTD decision, it was agreed that maximum possible assistance are extended to the participation of governments and civil society entities for participation for balanced participation of the stakeholders in the working group.” -- While appreciating the proposal from UK and Tunisia, that cannot be accepted - since we are establishing the WG which also not follow UN rules on exceptional basis – we are not in a position on making decision on exceptional case – we can make exception in CSTD or ECOSOC rules. Chile To Tunisia and UK, it is a good compromise. Chair – to Iran, 2+2+2+2 is a little limited in numbers. Proposal is just to say balanced participation from developing and developed countries Iran 1 from developing and 1 from developed. Better for more efficiency with 30, but we can revisit the numbers. Chair Thank you. I think 5 from private sector, 5 from civil society, 5 from IGO, 5 from international organization and consultation should be continuous – when it’s established. I want the consensus and then move forward to the Chair US Oh really I think we had the great deal for UK/Tunisia and Iran. I am bit confused where we stand – we want clarification. We still reaffirm your original proposal of 5 5 5. Why for IGO? It is not acceptable of 2 from PS and CS Chair I think the text is almost same – only difference is number: 2 2 2 2 2 Canada, still confused – and we like the UK/Tunisia proposal. Chair Proposal on the floor is what UK read. My proposal of 5+5+5+ 5 IGO is still there. Philippines Seek for clarification. We can go along with proposal of Iran, but not with UK/Tunisia. India Support the Iranian proposal. Re numbers – there has to be balance between states and other stakeholders: 3+3+3+3. We will have difficulty with UK proposal – to allow stakeholders on equal footing on . Clarify this is the WG of the Chair, but the report will be that of CSTD APC Express concern the numbering proposal, from Iran and India. We fail to understand how to include developing countries with that numbers. I do support the Iran proposal to support the developing countries participation. Status of WG and output – it appears Two resolutions in General Assembly and ECOSOC. WG Output is the input to CSTD, and then make recommendations to CSTD. Para 18 of second committee reads as: Welcomes ECOSOC resolution para 30 to invite Chair – South Africa We support proposal by Iran on Chapeau. WG 20+2 – is already established. We can increase the numbers into 2, but not accept the language of UK proposal. There should be the distinction – between government and other stakeholders and Iran proposal captures Chair Go back to 5+5+5 plus IGO I invite UK to polish up Chair I will invite UK to table resolution “The Chair of the CSTD decides on an exceptional basis and without prejudice to the rules of the procedure of the function of the commission and the ECOSOC, to establish the Working Group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and all of the stakeholders on improvement of IGF, in open and inclusive manner throughout the process, composed the following” Chair Participation of non-governmental entities, civil society – for development. At 19 July, ECOSOC calling 2006/42, on 28 July 2008, and resolution of 18 July 2008, in recognizing the need for meaningful participation and contributions for civil society, Madam Chair, trying to bring this meeting to consensus – I appeal to all of us – this morning and afternoon – to build the consensus and trust – that Chair decide on exceptional basis without prejudice The Chair of CSTD decides as a proposal: “The Chair of CSTD invites the following stakeholders on an exceptional basis without prejudice to the established rules of ECOSOC – to establish a Working Group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and all of the stakeholders on improvement of IGF. 5 from Civil Society, 5 from business, 5 from technical and academia and International organizations. Egypt I am confused with all proposals. Chair These will be in addition to governments. Egypt Normally, at CSTD, those stakeholders are only allowed when invited by the Chair to speak? Is this the way? Chair Within the established rule of ECOSOC and CSTD. Egypt If they are going to work with established rules, then no need to add? 105? Chair We have 20+ 2 and 15 plus International organizations India I want to request if the proposal be read again. Chair Proposals are almost identical – not much difference. We need to compile two together. 18:02 Mic is not working. India The language – is revolutionary EU ? We still have some doubts on 2nd para? WG Only observer? Rules of procedures still bother. “The chair invites the following stakeholders to join and participate in the Working Group in accordance with the established rules of procedures of the ECOSOC and the CSTD who will remain fully engaged throughout the process, - 5 business community - 5 civil society - 5 technical and academic community - 5 intergovernmental organizations Chair When it comes to the decision making it will be at the hand of governments – but it still looks hard – this is only for consultation India We accept the deletion of language: “to preserve intergovernmental nature” Participate – is not observer. Iran Russia We can also support this. Bill Drake Questions – what would be the incentive for non-governmental actors to participate – would we participate it at all? Chile Needs more paras – Decision be by consensus, overriding the voting rules of procedures Make sure that input from other stakeholders will be taken into account when writing the recommendations contained in the report of the Working Group. Swiss We propose to add “within the practice of CSTD” APC Make different suggestion ICC IGC (Izumi) We are worried – are we making any problem to governments? We have patiently waited for a long time today to speak after governments taking the floor– we are working together with you. It is a big departure from IGF conventions. I will have difficulty in explaining to our colleagues waiting at the other end of the Network. Chair I want to appeal – idea of WG is to do wide consultation – with private sectors – so that they can advice to policy makers. Suggesting – delete established rules of procedures CSTD and ECOSOC. Please, we are appealing. “The decision of this WG is by consensus. It will consider the contributions of other stakeholders.” Please let it be more flexible. And then find the mid-way. UK – add one Russia We cannot accept the deletion of “established rules of procedure” South Africa Following Russia – Not to delete “rules and procedures” EU Consensus – by 22 member states? Chair - YES Brazil Brazil believes in order for compromise – deletion of this phrase be considered by both sides – Even if we keep the text, it does not seem great problem to civil society. Most important – these group – seek, compile, and suggest – clearly guarantee that different views be expressed. Without prejudice of expressing all different views within its report. Chile My problem is – you don’t express all views – recommendation adopted by consensus – if you want to add that – you need more details –. The whole exercises is getting complicated. India I agree - Whole exercises is getting complicated. We don’t accept the deletion of rules of procedures. Chile This Group is not going to drafting decisions. Recommendations or reports are different from drafting decisions. IGC (Izumi) There is some harsh restrictions from first para – on other stakeholders. We appeal the softening the language on imposing restrictions to CS. (Some governments saying from the floor – that is the CSTD practice) Chile To preserve the last para guaranteeing the diverse views be taken into the report. US This is what we have been over the past five years. They have to have the voices – they cannot be shuttered down into the WG. Philippines We raised the flag earlier – several times but not given the floor. Issue of second class. We were not called. I like to state – according to the rules and procedures of CSTD and ECOSOC South Africa Delete – “join and” – “without prejudice” Canada On last input – “Input from all stakeholders include all stakeholders views who are not participating in the WG could also be taken into consideration.” EU If are to continue this direction of creating second class citizens, I am not going to be able to sell this to EU member states. My mandate is to give equal status to all stakeholders. Delete “rules of procedures” Mexico We are here to get compromise. Mexico proposed to delete “rules of procedures” – and last para. Iran Chair summarized the current draft and calling for consensus. UK No. Member states only, and restrictions on these guests. Iran To UK – Canada Explanation – for stakeholders – participate as merely observers Or equal participants in the WG. To delete that we can convince that they are equal participants, if we keep that, it’s not easy to convince the capital. Mexico Where is the flexibility that Chair asked for? Chair – Proposition – Last para – the decisions of this WG will be made by the 22 member states, taking into consideration inputs from all stakeholders including those who did not participate in the WG. US I am really lost – It’s a testimony for the process – multi-stakeholder of dialogues. We cannot accept – we join EU, Chile, Canada, Mexico, we must have equal footing of participation in this setup. Need to see the languages for that. (They printed the current proposal of Chair and circulated) “The Chair of the CSTD establishes a Working Group of 15 member states plus representatives of the five countries which hosted the IGF meetings plus the two countries which hosted WSIS. This Working Group will seek, compile, and review inputs of the Internet Governance Forum. In an open and inclusive manner throughout the process. The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively participate in the Working Group, who will remain fully engaged throughout the process: - 5 Business community - 5 Civil society - 5 Technical and academic community - 5 Intergovernmental organizations Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227 and 2010/228, it should be extended to ensure the participation of equal representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the Working Group. Decisions of this Working Group will be made by the 22 member states, taking into consideration inputs from all stakeholders, including those who did not participate in the Working Group.” UK On maximum possible assistance should be extended etc. Brazil We do not accept the black-box approach Greece Replace “in accordance with established rules of procedures” – we propose to insert “baring in mind the established rules of procedures (and the practice/guidance) of ECOSOC and CSTD” Iran – It may be agreeable “The work of the group will be governed by the established rules of procedures.” UK – No, delete the last para as this is Chapeau Philippines As long as we put “in accordance with the rules of procedures” Greece This “bearing in mind” is often used in these cases. Iran Propose: “The work of the Working Group will be governed by the established rules of procedures” EU That is not the solution. Not acceptable for larger EU constituencies. We have the concession – of 22 governments – departure from ECOSOC para 30 of all stakeholders participate Chair Asking again to put “bearing in mind the rules of procedures …” India We can accept that – provided that the para – Chile We are going around circles. Problems of rules of CSTD and ECOSOC – They have set of rules of procedures at ECOSOC – but not with CSTD – participation on the commission is enlarged by ECOSOC decision. So - it is not accurate – India Clarify the current proposal on the table please. (New printed version was circulated) “The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively participate in the Working Group bearing in mind the established rules of procedures of CSTD, who will remain fully engaged throughout the process: - 5 Business community - 5 Civil society - 5 Technical and academic community - 5 intergovernmental organizations Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227 and 2010/228, maximum possible assistance, diversity of ideas and equal representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the Working Group should be ensured. Decisions of this Working Group will be made by the 22 member states, taking into consideration inputs from all stakeholders, including those who did not participate in the Working Group.” Canada Is this MSH process? Return the fourth para into original – “by consensus” No opposition expressed. Final text agreed: “The Chair of the CSTD establishes a Working Group of 15 member states plus the five member states which hosted the IG meetings plus the two member states which hosted WSIS. This Working Group will seek, compile, and review inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders on improvement of the Internet Governance Forum, in an open and inclusive manner throughout the process. The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively participate in the Working Group, bearing in mind the established rules of procedure of the ECOSOC, who will remain fully engaged throughout the process: - 5 Business community - 5 Civil society - 5 Technical and academic community - 5 intergovernmental organizations Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227, and 2010/228, maximum possible assistance, diversity of ideas, and the equal representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the Working Group should be ensured in consultation with the stakeholders. The report of this Working Group will be adopted by consensus.” END (around 9 pm) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSTD WG meeting Dec 17.doc Type: application/msword Size: 99840 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iza at anr.org Tue Dec 21 09:37:21 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:37:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 Message-ID: Dear all, Here attached is my note taken at the CSTD IGF WG Consultation meeting on Dec 17. It is not that accurate, but hope you could catch some context of the negotiation as reference material. At one point, I was asked not to "blog" the progress of the meeting for fear of picked-up by some media as if governments are trying to suppress the CS/PS involvement and force the regulation to the Internet. That moment, the connection inside the room was so but that I could not send any message, at least for an hour or two. best, izumi PS It would be nice if we could have some kind of "mailing list", be it informal for now, but convenient to keep the contact and spirit. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: CSTD WG meeting Dec 17.doc Type: application/msword Size: 99840 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org Tue Dec 21 11:33:47 2010 From: ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org (HASSAN Ayesha) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:33:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Dear all, I think a list is a good idea. I also think we should urge for 1)high quality real time transcription (not the level of real time transcription used in November for the CSTD consultation which rendered the transcripts very inaccurate and not usable) and 2) webcast for all working group meetings and related consultations. Best regards, Ayesha -----Original Message----- From: graham at isoc.org [mailto:graham at isoc.org] Sent: mardi 21 décembre 2010 16:55 To: Izumi AIZU; izumiaizu at gmail.com; Luis Magalhães Cc: aaron.holtz at fco.gsi.gov.uk; Adiel Akplogan; Adam Peake; Ana Neves; Anne-Rachel Inne; Anriette Esterhuysen; Axel Pawlik; HASSAN Ayesha; baher.esmat at icann.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle; Constance Bommelaer; Byron Holland; ca at rits.org.br; Chris Disspain; chambers at isoc.org; Cathy Handley; Chris Hemmerlein; chris.lomax at fco.gsi.gov.uk; Dan Graham; eiriarte at lactld.org; Fiona Alexander; Frank March; german at apnic.net; glaser at nic.br; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Heather Dryden; hirokazu.igarashi at mofa.go.jp; Scott Hoyt; jb7454 at att.com; jeff.brueggeman at att.com; jeremy at ciroap.org Subject: Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 Thank you again Izumi. Who asked you not to blog? UN staff? Government rep? I find that shocking! And yes, let's have a list. I could get one created @ ISOC. What criteria for membership? Bill -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:37:21 To: Luis T. Magalhães Cc: aaron.holtz at fco.gsi.gov.uk; adiel at afrinic.net; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; Ana Neves; anne-rachel.inne at icann.org; anriette at apc.org; axel.pawlik at ripe.net; ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org; baher.esmat at icann.org; bdelachapelle at gmail.com; bommelaer at isoc.org; byron.holland at cira.ca; ca at rits.org.br; ceo at auda.org.au; chambers at isoc.org; chandley at arin.net; CHemmerlein at ntia.doc.gov; chris.lomax at fco.gsi.gov.uk; dan.graham at isoc.org; eiriarte at lactld.org; falexander at ntia.doc.gov; Frank.march at med.govt.nz; german at apnic.net; glaser at nic.br; governance at lists.cpsr.org; graham at isoc.org; Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca; hirokazu.igarashi at mofa.go.jp; hoyt at isoc.org; jb7454 at att.com; jeff.brueggeman at att.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; juuso.moisander at formin.fi; jzuck at actonline.org; Lillian at cipesa.org; m.tanabe at soumu.go.jp; mandy.carver at icann.org; marilynscade at hotmail.com; mark.carvell at bis.gsi.gov.uk; martin.boyle at nominet.org.uk; maruyama at nic.ad.jp; michael.niebel at ec.europa.eu; Nigel.Hickson at bis.gsi.gov.uk; Parminder at itforchange.net; Peter at centr.org; pwilson at apnic.net; raul at lacnic.net; rendek at ripe.net; Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl; sdelbianco at netchoice.org; st.amour at isoc.org; william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; wood at isoc.org; yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Subject: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 Dear all, Here attached is my note taken at the CSTD IGF WG Consultation meeting on Dec 17. It is not that accurate, but hope you could catch some context of the negotiation as reference material. At one point, I was asked not to "blog" the progress of the meeting for fear of picked-up by some media as if governments are trying to suppress the CS/PS involvement and force the regulation to the Internet. That moment, the connection inside the room was so but that I could not send any message, at least for an hour or two. best, izumi PS It would be nice if we could have some kind of "mailing list", be it informal for now, but convenient to keep the contact and spirit. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Dec 21 12:12:17 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:12:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: 2010/12/22 : > Thank you again Izumi. > > Who asked you not to blog?  UN staff?  Government rep?   I find that shocking! Well, me too. It's better not to disclose who said that to me, since it is from one of the more MSH friendly governments. Well, diplomats are like that. Later I told him it does not matter what I blog or others blog, but it's the media they write what they think appeals to the readers most and get attention and hence $$$s. He agreed. It was bit a panicky reaction, not too serious. > > And yes, let's have a list.  I could get one created @ ISOC.  What criteria for membership? Good question. Any individual who believes that trying to keep and promote multistakeholder within IGF context if not WSIS is a good thing. Hosted by ISOC will give some message, positive and negative, like any other organizations such as IGC or ICC (all starting with I and ending with C, so shall we invite IOC? ;-). izumi > > Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Izumi AIZU > Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:37:21 > To: Luis T. Magalhães > Cc: aaron.holtz at fco.gsi.gov.uk; adiel at afrinic.net; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; Ana Neves; anne-rachel.inne at icann.org; anriette at apc.org; axel.pawlik at ripe.net; ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org; baher.esmat at icann.org; bdelachapelle at gmail.com; bommelaer at isoc.org; byron.holland at cira.ca; ca at rits.org.br; ceo at auda.org.au; chambers at isoc.org; chandley at arin.net; CHemmerlein at ntia.doc.gov; chris.lomax at fco.gsi.gov.uk; dan.graham at isoc.org; eiriarte at lactld.org; falexander at ntia.doc.gov; Frank.march at med.govt.nz; german at apnic.net; glaser at nic.br; governance at lists.cpsr.org; graham at isoc.org; Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca; hirokazu.igarashi at mofa.go.jp; hoyt at isoc.org; jb7454 at att.com; jeff.brueggeman at att.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; juuso.moisander at formin.fi; jzuck at actonline.org; Lillian at cipesa.org; m.tanabe at soumu.go.jp; mandy.carver at icann.org; marilynscade at hotmail.com; mark.carvell at bis.gsi.gov.uk; martin.boyle at nominet.org.uk; maruyama at nic.ad.jp; michael.niebel at ec.europa.eu; Nigel.Hickson at bis.gsi.gov.uk; Parminder at itforchange.net; Peter at centr.org; pwilson at apnic.net; raul at lacnic.net; rendek at ripe.net; Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl; sdelbianco at netchoice.org; st.amour at isoc.org; william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; wood at isoc.org; yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com > Subject: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 > > Dear all, > Here attached is my note taken at the CSTD IGF WG Consultation > meeting on Dec 17. > > It is not that accurate, but hope you could catch some context > of the negotiation as reference material. > > At one point, I was asked not to "blog" the progress of the meeting > for fear of picked-up by some media as if governments are trying > to suppress the CS/PS involvement and force the regulation to > the Internet. That moment, the connection inside the room was so > but that I could not send any message, at least for an hour or two. > > best, > > izumi > > PS > It would be nice if we could have some kind of "mailing list", > be it informal for now, but convenient to keep the contact and spirit. > > izumi > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Tue Dec 21 13:53:24 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:53:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] Wired: More Brazilian Cyberpolitics Message-ID: <4D10F7A4.5040004@eff.org> “Brazil’s largest newspaper sues independent blog and begins a new era of censorship" http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2010/12/more-brazilian-cyberpolitics/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 21 15:45:38 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:45:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality Decision Message-ID: Check out the Headlines within the FCC website on Net Neutrality http://www.fcc.gov/ http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/us-regulators-approve-net-neutrality-20101222-194n6.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." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 21 19:10:00 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:10:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Bill Graham wrote: >> And yes, let's have a list. I could get one created @ ISOC. What >> criteria for membership? > > Hosted by ISOC will give some message, positive and negative, > like any other organizations such as IGC or ICC (all starting with I > and > ending with C, so shall we invite IOC? ;-). How about registering a domain as the first step towards establishing a new umbrella organisation of all non-governmental participants in IG - the "plan C" of which there has been talk. It could be this new organisation that formally and publicly submits the list of 15 non- governmental members to the CSTD working group (albiet made up of 5+5+5 selected by IGC, ICC and ISOC). The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in Internet Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts? PS. Will endeavour to purge the governance list archives of accidental ccs. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 21 19:15:37 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:15:37 +0500 Subject: [governance] My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One thing missing from all these series of events is media pressure that does knock sense into governments is properly coordinated and moved forward. The initial media reports on not so large networks was a good start but it would have been more powerful if all the major online news networks were targeted with news reports bring attention to this issue globally. Its not too late either. The google blog entry did find way into many information and media networks and a much more coordinated effort between the various stakeholder groups can take this further! Best Fouad Bajwa 2010/12/21 Izumi AIZU : > Dear all, > Here attached is my note taken at the CSTD IGF WG Consultation > meeting on Dec 17. > > It is not that accurate, but hope you could catch some context > of the negotiation as reference material. > > At one point, I was asked not to "blog" the progress of the meeting > for fear of picked-up by some media as if governments are trying > to suppress the CS/PS involvement and force the regulation to > the Internet. That moment, the connection inside the room was so > but that I could not send any message, at least for an hour or two. > > best, > > izumi > > PS > It would be nice if we could have some kind of "mailing list", > be it informal for now, but convenient to keep the contact and spirit. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 21 19:20:14 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:20:14 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: I would recommend having an IGF in the beginning of the domain so that it also shows up on all IGF related searches across the Internet. How about www.igfngcouncil.org The domain will clearly send a message as well on what we are gearing up for and what the other side should understand respectively. may be www.igfnongov.org :o) I hope its not just wishful thinking! -- Fouad On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Bill Graham wrote: > >>> And yes, let's have a list.  I could get one created @ ISOC.  What >>> criteria for membership? >> >> Hosted by ISOC will give some message, positive and negative, >> like any other organizations such as IGC or ICC (all starting with I and >> ending with C, so shall we invite IOC? ;-). > > How about registering a domain as the first step towards establishing a new > umbrella organisation of all non-governmental participants in IG - the "plan > C" of which there has been talk. It could be this new organisation that > formally and publicly submits the list of 15 non-governmental members to the > CSTD working group (albiet made up of 5+5+5 selected by IGC, ICC and ISOC). > > The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in Internet > Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts? > > PS. Will endeavour to purge the governance list archives of accidental ccs. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 22 06:16:57 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:16:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: In message , at 08:10:00 on Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes >The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in >Internet Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts? A bit close to the UN's CONGO, where "NGO" also has a rather more formal meaning, and requires accreditation with UN. Perhaps we wouldn't want that baggage? Not a serious suggestion but how about United non-Nations? Are we assuming that Intergovernmental Organisations are excluded, and International ones (see the recent WG composition) included. writes >www.igfnongov.org Is the idea to have just a "plan C" IGF every year, or something reaching a bit further into the IG arena? -- 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 Wed Dec 22 06:19:00 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:19:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <346262.80610.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear CS IGC coordinators and All IGC Fellows, I had been observing the efforts of Izumi while CSTD/IGF at Geneva. Off course he served his responsibility to maximum level with his self-motivation.   With reference to the establishment of a Working Group parallel to the governmental setup, my suggestions are as follows: 1.          The proposed Name of the Group should not be limited to Non-Govt. only, (as most of us were agreed for the slogan of Multi-stakeholder contribution & collaboration) We may establish a larger group with the participation of Multi-stakeholders: including CS, NGOs, Private/Business entities, Gov. Representatives, Academia, Technical Experts as well as the ISPs/Telecom Companies. 2.          We could establish this group within the framework of CS IGC as we prepared last month, however, as per the suggestions of the caucus members and intentions of affiliations of some other organizations, yes we can give it a new name, a new organization which may have affiliations of different organizations/institutions. 3          We can also offer limited seats for the membership of Experts Panel as per any formula like 5+5+5 + + + = n members of all Multi-stakeholders.             This expert panel may work on the given tasks like review of IGF, Future Requirements and proposals for Policies Development regarded to Global Internet Governance. 4.         I also suggest to open an affiliation mechanism, so the different organization will join it for a common cause, sharing idea, common policies development and for declaration of common statement like this IGF consultation. 5.         I would also propose the name of the Organization as well as the Domain Name: Organization Name:         Global Internet Governance Council (gIGC)             Domain Name:                gIGCouncil.org        (this domain name is available at this moment, if the coordinators take sharp step to register this domain,                otherwise if you depute this task to me, IGFPAK.org may offer  free registration + hosting for this common initiative) 6.         Note:  A common name with Broader vision may bring additional advantages. Otherwise, if we establish a step on bias level at the foundation, the construction efforts may not be useful (at its own framework) after a period of time when the common issue is resolved.   Thanking you and Best Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah Urdu Internet Society Internet Governance of Pakistan ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Izumi AIZU Cc: "graham at isoc.org" ; Luis Magalhães ; "aaron.holtz at fco.gsi.gov.uk" ; Adiel Akplogan ; Adam Peake ; Ana Neves ; Anne-Rachel Inne ; Anriette Esterhuysen ; Axel Pawlik ; Ayesha Hassan ; "baher.esmat at icann.org" ; Bertrand de la Chapelle ; Constance Bommelaer ; Byron Holland ; "ca at rits.org.br" ; Chris Disspain ; "chambers at isoc.org" ; Cathy Handley ; Chris Hemmerlein ; "chris.lomax at fco.gsi.gov.uk" ; Dan Graham ; "eiriarte at lactld.org" ; Fiona Alexander ; Frank March ; "german at apnic.net" ; "glaser at nic.br" ; Heather Dryden ; "hirokazu.igarashi at mofa.go.jp" ; Scott Hoyt ; "jb7454 at att.com" ; "jeff.brueggeman at att.com" Sent: Wed, 22 December, 2010 5:10:00 Subject: Re: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 Bill Graham wrote: >> And yes, let's have a list.  I could get one created @ ISOC.  What criteria for >>membership? > > Hosted by ISOC will give some message, positive and negative, > like any other organizations such as IGC or ICC (all starting with I and > ending with C, so shall we invite IOC? ;-). How about registering a domain as the first step towards establishing a new umbrella organisation of all non-governmental participants in IG - the "plan C" of which there has been talk. It could be this new organisation that formally and publicly submits the list of 15 non-governmental members to the CSTD working group (albiet made up of 5+5+5 selected by IGC, ICC and ISOC). The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in Internet Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts? PS. Will endeavour to purge the governance list archives of accidental ccs.  ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 22 06:37:07 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:37:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> Dear all I still need to post my thoughts on the CSTD meeting last week. Much of my energy in the last few days has gone into trying to get back to South Africa from Europe. I think we do need a space for working on IGF improvements, but I think we shoudl steer clear from the language of 'council of ....'. That implies representative structures which we have no legitimate claim to at present. As Roland says the proposed title is very close to CONGO which represents the ECOSOC accredited organisations. Anriette On 22/12/10 13:16, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 08:10:00 on Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes > >> The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in >> Internet Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts? > > A bit close to the UN's CONGO, where "NGO" also has a rather more > formal meaning, and requires accreditation with UN. Perhaps we > wouldn't want that baggage? > > Not a serious suggestion but how about United non-Nations? Are we > assuming that Intergovernmental Organisations are excluded, and > International ones (see the recent WG composition) included. > > writes > >> www.igfnongov.org > > Is the idea to have just a "plan C" IGF every year, or something > reaching a bit further into the IG arena? > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Dec 22 07:43:11 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:43:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> Message-ID: I think it is a little premature to come up with its own names or Domain names for the new cross-sector mechanism. I like to keep it loose and informal, and mainly doing the coordination among the like-minded groups by "liaisons" but not to share the whole members and bring into one "body" such as council or whatever. I mean, on the one hand taking the lessons seriously and we need to focus what should be done, but I think that is more of issue or task based functions first, then the mechanism or form should follow the functions as it develops. Jeremy and I have corresponded with our Nomcom, Ian and asked if they like to select 5 members for the WG, instead of 10, and I guess they will discuss within Nomcom and may proceed that. Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. Of course, I welcome other ideas, izumi 2010/12/22 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Dear all > > I still need to post my thoughts  on the CSTD meeting last week. Much of my > energy in the last few days has gone into trying to get back to South Africa > from Europe. > > I think we do need a space for working on IGF improvements, but I think we > shoudl steer clear from the language of 'council of ....'.  That implies > representative structures which we have no legitimate claim to at present. > > As Roland says the proposed title is very close to CONGO which represents > the ECOSOC accredited organisations. > > Anriette > > > On 22/12/10 13:16, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> In message , at 08:10:00 >> on Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> >>> The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in >>> Internet Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts? >> >> A bit close to the UN's CONGO, where "NGO" also has a rather more formal >> meaning, and requires accreditation with UN. Perhaps we wouldn't want that >> baggage? >> >> Not a serious suggestion but how about United non-Nations? Are we assuming >> that Intergovernmental Organisations are excluded, and International ones >> (see the recent WG composition) included. >> >> writes >> >>> www.igfnongov.org >> >> Is the idea to have just a "plan C" IGF every year, or something reaching >> a bit further into the IG arena? >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 22 07:48:51 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:48:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> Message-ID: <271EB813-B04D-48F0-AC12-729A4FA505BC@ciroap.org> I've been asked if we could all stop cc'ing the long list of other Internet governance participants when mailing the governance list. I think this is a reasonable request, since the governance list was added to the cc list of a private thread without the other recipients' consent, thus exposing their private email addresses. Anything of importance that happens on any private correspondence to which Izumi or I are party will be summarised back here (and vice versa). Thanks. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Dec 22 07:59:51 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:59:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474- @bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> Message-ID: A few years ago we used the name net-gov.org for the caucus. Vittorio maintained a site there (and still does for the moment). I have the name, can be re-used if attractive/appropriate. Adam >I think it is a little premature to come up with its own names >or Domain names for the new cross-sector mechanism. > >I like to keep it loose and informal, and mainly doing the >coordination among the like-minded groups by "liaisons" >but not to share the whole members and bring into >one "body" such as council or whatever. > >I mean, on the one hand taking the lessons seriously >and we need to focus what should be done, but I think >that is more of issue or task based functions first, then >the mechanism or form should follow the functions as >it develops. > >Jeremy and I have corresponded with our Nomcom, Ian and asked >if they like to select 5 members for the WG, instead of 10, and >I guess they will discuss within Nomcom and may proceed that. > >Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector >WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and >present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision >worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. > >Of course, I welcome other ideas, > >izumi > > >2010/12/22 Anriette Esterhuysen : >> Dear all >> >> I still need to post my thoughts  on the CSTD meeting last week. Much of my >> energy in the last few days has gone into trying to get back to South Africa >> from Europe. >> >> I think we do need a space for working on IGF improvements, but I think we >> shoudl steer clear from the language of 'council of ....'.  That implies >> representative structures which we have no legitimate claim to at present. >> >> As Roland says the proposed title is very close to CONGO which represents >> the ECOSOC accredited organisations. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 22/12/10 13:16, Roland Perry wrote: >>> >>> In message , at 08:10:00 >>> on Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes >>> >>>> The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in >>>> Internet Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts? >>> >>> A bit close to the UN's CONGO, where "NGO" also has a rather more formal >>> meaning, and requires accreditation with UN. Perhaps we wouldn't want that >>> baggage? >>> >>> Not a serious suggestion but how about United non-Nations? Are we assuming >>> that Intergovernmental Organisations are excluded, and International ones >>> (see the recent WG composition) included. >>> >>> writes >>> >>>> www.igfnongov.org >>> >>> Is the idea to have just a "plan C" IGF every year, or something reaching >>> a bit further into the IG arena? >>> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 08:19:08 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:19:08 -0200 Subject: [governance] Results EuroDIG agenda survey Message-ID: Dear all, The results of the survey about the agenda of the next EuroDIG are online. A big thanks to all those who took the time to participate http://www.eurodig.org/news/call-for-issues-for-eurodig-2011 You can still share your comments and proposals by e-mail: office at eurodig.org Best wishes! On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Just a quick remind of the deadline to take part on the EuroDIG agenda > survey, available in: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/eurodig > > It will take you no more than 10 min to reply this survey. The results will > be published in EuroDIG website and will be taken into account in the next > planning meeting. > > The deadline is Friday, December 17th. > > Thank you! > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> As you may know, an EuroDIG planning meeting took place in Geneva on 23 >> November. During this meeting the agenda of the 4th EuroDIG in Belgrade >> (30/31 May 2011) started to be discussed. >> >> >> EuroDIG team invite interested people to indicate their preferences in the >> *agenda survey *available here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/eurodig >> >> >> It will take you no more than 10 min to reply this survey. The results >> will be published in EuroDIG website and will be taken into account in the >> next planning meeting. The deadline to answer the survey is *December 17*. >> >> >> >> This survey is part of a broader initiative to promote e-participation in >> EuroDIG, which encompasses online participation in planning meetings, in the >> process of agenda setting and remote participation in EuroDIG. >> >> >> Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. You can send them to >> office at eurodig.org >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Marilia >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Dec 22 10:35:20 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:35:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> Message-ID: <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> On 22 Dec 2010, at 07:43, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector > WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and > present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision > worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations or International Organizations. I have heard both used. The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open pass to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why thee would be a specific IGO group. Also even if there were, I do not understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the group. > I think it is a little premature to come up with its own names > or Domain names for the new cross-sector mechanism. In my mind, i am framing this as an open dialogue on internet governance and, among other thoughts, i think it would be a mistake to treat it as rooted in the IGF. IGF is part of it, but we should probably avoid treating the IGF as the root part it. I also think that we should enable this to grow beyond UN initiation and control - it is all well and good that the UN GA looks like it is going to give people the right to continue talking about Internet governance in a multistakeholder environment for another 5 years, but one improvement I would hope we achieve over the next 5 years is to untie the apron strings so that in 2015, if the participants in a global open dialogue on Internet governance want to continue talking, they can do so without the UN GA's by-your-leave, i.e. permission from a liege. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 22 11:09:26 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:09:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD at acm.org>, at 10:35:20 on Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes >> Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector >> WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and >> present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision >> worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. > >Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations or International Organizations. > >I have heard both used. And even if it says IO, is that really a traditional home for the private sector or technical community organisations such as ICANN, and IETF. >The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open pass to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why >thee would be a specific IGO group. Also even if there were, I do not understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the group. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010inf1_enfrsp.pdf ...is a recent attendee list from CSTD, and they have a category for Intergovernmental Organisation, separate from "United Nations" (organisations). And finally a category of "Specialised Agency". All of those are separate from actual government reps (categorised by UN region for the purposes of this WG), so would at least have to find some home as a distinct "5" I'd have thought. Bringing up the rear are NGOs, CS and business, and "Resource persons". -- 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 katitza at eff.org Wed Dec 22 11:55:33 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:55:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] EFF: Lawmakers Must Respect Freedom of Expression in Wikileaks Debate Message-ID: <4D122D85.4030507@eff.org> Greetings, As part of our domestic work in the US, we have issued this press release today. Just fyi since this letter was released as part of our domestic work. For the full open letter: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/WikiLeaks/wikileaks_open_letter_final.pdf -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [E-S] EFF: Lawmakers Must Respect Freedom of Expression in Wikileaks Debate Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:05:33 -0800 From: EFF Press Reply-To: press at eff.org To: presslist at eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 Contact: Marcia Hofmann Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation marcia at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x116 Rainey Reitman Activist Electronic Frontier Foundation rainey at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x140 Lawmakers Must Respect Freedom of Expression in Wikileaks Debate Broad Coalition Calls on U.S. Government Officials to Protect Free Speech San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a broad coalition of advocacy organizations sent an open letter to U.S. lawmakers today, calling on government officials to respect freedom of expression in the debate over the whistle-blower website Wikileaks. In the wake of Wikileaks' recent publications of U.S. diplomatic cables, some lawmakers have attacked newspapers' rights to report on the information in those documents. Other government officials have cast doubt on Americans' right to download, read, or discuss documents published by Wikileaks and even the news reporting based on those documents. Rash legislation was proposed that could limit the free speech of news reporting organizations well beyond Wikileaks. In the open letter sent Wednesday, 30 groups urged lawmakers to remember and respect constitutional rights as Congress continues to discuss the issues at stake. "By likening publishers and reporters to spies and cyber-terrorists, some government officials have irresponsibly created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty leading many to question their rights to publish, read and discuss the Wikileaks cables," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "But American law is well settled on these issues: the First Amendment strongly protects publishers' right to distribute truthful political information, and Internet users have a fundamental right to read and debate it." In a congressional hearing about Wikileaks last week, all seven witnesses to the House Judiciary Committee cautioned against attempts to suppress free speech and criticized the overwhelming secrecy that permeates the U.S. government. The coalition joining the open letter today similarly called for caution against any new laws that could weaken the principles of free expression that are vital to our democracy. "In a free country, the government cannot and does not have unlimited power to determine what publishers can publish and what the public can read," said EFF Activist Rainey Reitman. "We encourage a robust public debate about Wikileaks and the secret government documents, but lawmakers must protect the rights of all involved." For the full open letter: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/WikiLeaks/wikileaks_open_letter_final.pdf Join EFF in standing up against Internet censorship: https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship For this release: https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/12/21 About EFF The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression and privacy online. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world at https://www.eff.org/ -end- _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe or manage your email options: https://mail1.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/presslist -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Dec 22 13:06:06 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:06:06 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree with Avri´s picture of "an open dialogue on internet governance" and I also think it would not be strategically interesting to have such a prominent focus on IGF, when our worries are actually wider. I also agree with Izumi´s evaluation that a loose and informal coordination would be better, at least for now. Ayesha made very important suggestions (high quality real time transcription and webcast) that I believe should be reinforced in all our communications with CSTD. This is crucial if we want to involve a larger group of people on this discussion. Marília On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD at acm.org>, at 10:35:20 on > Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > > Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector >>> WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and >>> present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision >>> worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. >>> >> >> Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations or International >> Organizations. >> >> I have heard both used. >> > > And even if it says IO, is that really a traditional home for the private > sector or technical community organisations such as ICANN, and IETF. > > > The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open pass >> to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why >> thee would be a specific IGO group. Also even if there were, I do not >> understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the group. >> > > http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010inf1_enfrsp.pdf > > ...is a recent attendee list from CSTD, and they have a category for > Intergovernmental Organisation, separate from "United Nations" > (organisations). And finally a category of "Specialised Agency". > > All of those are separate from actual government reps (categorised by UN > region for the purposes of this WG), so would at least have to find some > home as a distinct "5" I'd have thought. > > Bringing up the rear are NGOs, CS and business, and "Resource persons". > -- > 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed Dec 22 13:22:41 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:22:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] Join Statement on Wikileaks from UN Special Rapporteur on FoE and IACHR Message-ID: <4D1241F1.1070106@eff.org> UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Joint Statement On Wikileaks December 21, 2010 – In light of ongoing developments related to the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks, and the publication of information contained in those cables by mainstream news organizations, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression see fit to recall a number of international legal principles. The rapporteurs call upon States and other relevant actors to keep these principles in mind when responding to the aforementioned developments. 1. The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions. The right to access to information protects the right of every person to access public information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf. It is a right that has received particular attention from the international community, given its importance to the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes. Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation. National authorities should take active steps to ensure the principle of maximum transparency, address the culture of secrecy that still prevails in many countries and increase the amount of information subject to routine disclosure. 2. At the same time, the right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests such as national security and the rights and security of other persons. Secrecy laws should define national security precisely and indicate clearly the criteria which should be used in determining whether or not information can be declared secret. Exceptions to access to information on national security or other grounds should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information. In accordance with international standards, information regarding human rights violations should not be considered secret or classified. 3. Public authorities and their staff bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of legitimately classified information under their control. Other individuals, including journalists, media workers and civil society representatives, who receive and disseminate classified information because they believe it is in the public interest, should not be subject to liability unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information. In addition, government "whistleblowers" releasing information on violations of the law, on wrongdoing by public bodies, on a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or on a breach of human rights or humanitarian law should be protected against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in good faith. Any attempt to impose subsequent liability on those who disseminate classified information should be grounded in previously established laws enforced by impartial and independent legal systems with full respect for due process guarantees, including the right to appeal. 4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable. 5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference. 6. Self-regulatory mechanisms for journalists have played an important role in fostering greater awareness about how to report on and address difficult and controversial subjects. Special journalistic responsibility is called for when reporting information from confidential sources that may affect valuable interests such as fundamental rights or the security of other persons. Ethical codes for journalists should therefore provide for an evaluation of the public interest in obtaining such information. Such codes can also provide useful guidance for new forms of communication and for new media organizations, which should likewise voluntarily adopt ethical best practices to ensure that the information made available is accurate, fairly presented and does not cause substantial harm to legally protected interests such as human rights. Catalina Botero Marino Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Frank LaRue UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=829&lID=1 -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 22 15:26:32 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:26:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: <06AmaVo47lENFArY@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 16:06:06 on Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel writes >I agree with Avri´s picture of "an open dialogue on internet >governance" and I also think it would not be strategically interesting >to have such a prominent focus on IGF, when our worries are actually >wider. Focussing on just the IGF doesn't seem right. >I also agree with Izumi´s evaluation that a loose and informal >coordination would be better, at least for now. All the stakeholders need to meet and discuss this. To some extent that was maybe what the IGF was supposed to foster, but something a bit more agile would get faster results. >Ayesha made very important suggestions (high quality real time >transcription and webcast) that I believe should be reinforced in all >our communications with CSTD. This is crucial if we want to involve a >larger group of people on this discussion. CSTD experimented with transcription at their 24th November session, but it was difficult because of microphone problems, and also because the "who is talking now" protocol broke down. Although to their credit they have tidied almost all of the banter from the published transcripts: http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Transcript_Morning.pdf http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Transcript_Afternoon.pdf -- 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 vanda at uol.com.br Thu Dec 23 11:37:40 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:37:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] RES: Boas Festas ! Happy Holidays! Felices Fiestas! Message-ID: <00c301cba2bf$b88fb4b0$29af1e10$@uol.com.br> Juntos seremos mais fortes em 2011! BOAS FESTAS !!! Together we will be stronger in 2011! Happy Holidays!!! Unidos seremos más Fuertes en 2011! Felices Fiestas!!! Descrição: Descrição: cid:image001.gif at 01CB9D4C.DD646290 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 37166 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 13:50:12 2010 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:50:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear all: I support Marilia views. On Avri's ideal of continuing IGF beyond 2015 without the need to pass by the UN GA, although I understand where she is coming, let´s not forget that the UN with all its defects, its the only global organization available. And as usual, the national and the regional levels are where the real work takes place. As a consequence, I think it is necessary to keep struggling/working in a multistakeholder way, including everybody, even governments. :-) On Ayesha suggestion on real time transcription, it has been a request long time made by different people (including Gov. rep) to the CSTD secretariat. All people/entities interested should keep the pressure on this to the CSTD Secretariat. Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of procedure of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on ECOSOC Res. 2006/46. For this, it is necessary to take into account that the current rules of procedure apply to various functional commissions of ECOSOC, but CSTD is the only one which in the WSIS outcome documents and in its redefined mandate resolution, was explicitly requested to use it. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Miguel *Annex* Some selected text from the ECOSOC 2006/46 resolution (emphasis mine): *Mandate* 4. Decides that, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 57/270 B and 60/252, the Commission shall effectively assist the Economic and Social Council as the focal point in the system-wide follow-up, in particular the re view and assessment of progress made in implementing the outcomes of the Summit, while at the same time maintaining its original mandate on science and technology for development, also taking into account the provisions of paragraph 60 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome;5 5. Agrees that the system-wide follow-up shall have a strong development orientation; 6. Decides that, in the exercise of its responsibility as defined in paragraph 4 above, the Commission sh all review and assess progress made in implementing the outcomes of the Summit and advise the Council thereon, including through the elaboration of recommendations to the Council aimed at furthering the implementation of the Summit outcomes, and that to th at end, the Commission shall: (a ) Review and assess progress at the international and regional levels in the implementation of action lines, recommendations and commitments contained in the outcome documents of the Summit; (b ) Share best and effective practices and lessons learned and identify obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome them and important measures for further implementation of the Summit outcomes; *(c) Promote dialogue and foster partnerships, in coordination with other appropriate United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies, to contribute to the attainment of the Summit objectives and the implementation of its outcomes and to use information and communication technologies for development and the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, with the participation of Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international organizations in accordance with their different roles and responsibilities;* *Working methods* 11. Recommends that the Commission provide for Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international organizations to participate effectively in its work and contribute, within their areas of competence, to its deliberations; *13. Decides also that, in addition to its traditional working practices, the Commission will continue to explore development - friendly and innovative uses of electron ic media, drawing upon existing online databases on best practices, partnership projects and initiatives, as well as other collaborative electronic platforms, which would allow all stakeholders to contribute to follow-up efforts, share information, learn from the experience of others and explore opportunities for partnerships; * *Multi -stakeholder approach 14. Decides further that, while using the multi-stakeholder approach effectively, the intergovernmental nature of the Commission should be preserved;* **** On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I agree with Avri´s picture of "an open dialogue on internet governance" and > I also think it would not be strategically interesting to have such a > prominent focus on IGF, when our worries are actually wider. > > I also agree with Izumi´s evaluation that a loose and informal coordination > would be better, at least for now. > > Ayesha made very important suggestions (high quality real time transcription > and webcast) that I believe should be reinforced in all our communications > with CSTD. This is crucial if we want to involve a larger group of people on > this discussion. > > Marília > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> >> In message <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD at acm.org>, at 10:35:20 on >> Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes >>>> >>>> Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector >>>> WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and >>>> present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision >>>> worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. >>> >>> Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations or International >>> Organizations. >>> >>> I have heard both used. >> >> And even if it says IO, is that really a traditional home for the private >> sector or technical community organisations such as ICANN, and IETF. >> >>> The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open pass >>> to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why >>> thee would be a specific IGO group. Also even if there were, I do not >>> understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the group. >> >> http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010inf1_enfrsp.pdf >> >> ...is a recent attendee list from CSTD, and they have a category for >> Intergovernmental Organisation, separate from "United Nations" >> (organisations). And finally a category of "Specialised Agency". >> >> All of those are separate from actual government reps (categorised by UN >> region for the purposes of this WG), so would at least have to find some >> home as a distinct "5" I'd have thought. >> >> Bringing up the rear are NGOs, CS and business, and "Resource persons". >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 23 14:24:05 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:24:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: <88383B18-16F1-4563-B2CF-503247AFD913@acm.org> Hi, I never said without governments. As you will notice, I have every intention that governments should be full and equal partners. What I hope is that a global open dialogue on IG should be such that in 2015 its existence did not depend on the UN-GA giving it permission to exist, but that it would exist on its own without needing its initiator's blessing for another painful rebirth. This round has shown us that no matter how much the IGF or any other process achieves during its 5 years, the need to come back to the UN-GA for continued existence means a chance for those who despise it and those who want to eliminate all traces of multistakeholder governance to diminish its value. Also we spent nearly 2 years on the process question 'will they let us be' being the main issue under discussion, limiting the amount of forward progress that might have been achieved on the substantive issues. I am hoping that within five years that particular door can be closed. a. On 23 Dec 2010, at 13:50, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear all: > > I support Marilia views. > > On Avri's ideal of continuing IGF beyond 2015 without the need to pass by the UN GA, although I understand where she is coming, let´s not forget that the UN with all its defects, its the only global organization available. And as usual, the national and the regional levels are where the real work takes place. As a consequence, I think it is necessary to keep struggling/working in a multistakeholder way, including everybody, even governments. :-) > > On Ayesha suggestion on real time transcription, it has been a request long time made by different people (including Gov. rep) to the CSTD secretariat. All people/entities interested should keep the pressure on this to the CSTD Secretariat. > > Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of procedure of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on ECOSOC Res. 2006/46. For this, it is necessary to take into account that the current rules of procedure apply to various functional commissions of ECOSOC, but CSTD is the only one which in the WSIS outcome documents and in its redefined mandate resolution, was explicitly requested to use it. > > Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. > > Miguel > > Annex > > Some selected text from the ECOSOC 2006/46 resolution (emphasis mine): > > Mandate > 4. Decides that, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 57/270 B and 60/252, the Commission shall effectively assist the Economic and Social Council as the focal point in the system-wide follow-up, in particular the re view and assessment of progress made in implementing the outcomes of the Summit, while at the same time maintaining its original mandate on science and technology for development, also taking into account the provisions of paragraph 60 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome;5 > > 5. Agrees that the system-wide follow-up shall have a strong development orientation; > > 6. Decides that, in the exercise of its responsibility as defined in paragraph 4 above, the Commission sh all review and assess progress made in implementing the outcomes of the Summit and advise the Council thereon, including through the elaboration of recommendations to the Council aimed at furthering the implementation of the Summit outcomes, and that to th at end, the Commission shall: > (a ) Review and assess progress at the international and regional levels in the implementation of action lines, recommendations and commitments contained in the outcome documents of the Summit; > (b ) Share best and effective practices and lessons learned and identify obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome them and important measures for further implementation > of the Summit outcomes; > (c) Promote dialogue and foster partnerships, in coordination with other appropriate United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies, to contribute to the attainment of the Summit objectives and the implementation of its outcomes and to use information and communication technologies for development and the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, with the participation of Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international organizations in accordance with their different roles and responsibilities; > > Working methods > 11. Recommends that the Commission provide for Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international organizations to participate effectively in its work and contribute, within their areas of competence, to its deliberations; > > 13. Decides also that, in addition to its traditional working practices, the Commission will continue to explore development - friendly and innovative uses of electron ic media, drawing upon existing online databases on best practices, partnership projects and initiatives, as well as other collaborative electronic platforms, which would allow all stakeholders to contribute to follow-up efforts, share information, learn from the experience of others and explore opportunities for partnerships; > > Multi -stakeholder approach > 14. Decides further that, while using the multi-stakeholder approach effectively, the intergovernmental nature of the Commission should be preserved; > > **** > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I agree with Avri´s picture of "an open dialogue on internet governance" and > > I also think it would not be strategically interesting to have such a > > prominent focus on IGF, when our worries are actually wider. > > > > I also agree with Izumi´s evaluation that a loose and informal coordination > > would be better, at least for now. > > > > Ayesha made very important suggestions (high quality real time transcription > > and webcast) that I believe should be reinforced in all our communications > > with CSTD. This is crucial if we want to involve a larger group of people on > > this discussion. > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > >> > >> In message <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD at acm.org>, at 10:35:20 on > >> Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > >>>> > >>>> Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector > >>>> WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and > >>>> present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision > >>>> worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. > >>> > >>> Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations or International > >>> Organizations. > >>> > >>> I have heard both used. > >> > >> And even if it says IO, is that really a traditional home for the private > >> sector or technical community organisations such as ICANN, and IETF. > >> > >>> The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open pass > >>> to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why > >>> thee would be a specific IGO group. Also even if there were, I do not > >>> understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the group. > >> > >> http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010inf1_enfrsp.pdf > >> > >> ...is a recent attendee list from CSTD, and they have a category for > >> Intergovernmental Organisation, separate from "United Nations" > >> (organisations). And finally a category of "Specialised Agency". > >> > >> All of those are separate from actual government reps (categorised by UN > >> region for the purposes of this WG), so would at least have to find some > >> home as a distinct "5" I'd have thought. > >> > >> Bringing up the rear are NGOs, CS and business, and "Resource persons". > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 15:08:33 2010 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:08:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: <88383B18-16F1-4563-B2CF-503247AFD913@acm.org> References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> <88383B18-16F1-4563-B2CF-503247AFD913@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, Granted you did not say without Governments. However, I believe that a separation of IGF from UN GA will work against governments involvement. I agree that IGF and the UN can work together without the painful rebirths, but I don't see the GA giving a general blessing no limited in time or disassociating itself from the IGF. Best, Miguel On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I never said without governments. As you will notice, I have every > intention that governments should be full and equal partners. What I hope > is that a global open dialogue on IG should be such that in 2015 its > existence did not depend on the UN-GA giving it permission to exist, but > that it would exist on its own without needing its initiator's blessing for > another painful rebirth. This round has shown us that no matter how much > the IGF or any other process achieves during its 5 years, the need to come > back to the UN-GA for continued existence means a chance for those who > despise it and those who want to eliminate all traces of multistakeholder > governance to diminish its value. Also we spent nearly 2 years on the > process question 'will they let us be' being the main issue under > discussion, limiting the amount of forward progress that might have been > achieved on the substantive issues. > > I am hoping that within five years that particular door can be closed. > > a. > > > On 23 Dec 2010, at 13:50, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > > Dear all: > > > > I support Marilia views. > > > > On Avri's ideal of continuing IGF beyond 2015 without the need to pass by > the UN GA, although I understand where she is coming, let´s not forget that > the UN with all its defects, its the only global organization available. And > as usual, the national and the regional levels are where the real work takes > place. As a consequence, I think it is necessary to keep struggling/working > in a multistakeholder way, including everybody, even governments. :-) > > > > On Ayesha suggestion on real time transcription, it has been a request > long time made by different people (including Gov. rep) to the CSTD > secretariat. All people/entities interested should keep the pressure on this > to the CSTD Secretariat. > > > > Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of procedure > of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on ECOSOC Res. 2006/46. > For this, it is necessary to take into account that the current rules of > procedure apply to various functional commissions of ECOSOC, but CSTD is the > only one which in the WSIS outcome documents and in its redefined mandate > resolution, was explicitly requested to use it. > > > > Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. > > > > Miguel > > > > Annex > > > > Some selected text from the ECOSOC 2006/46 resolution (emphasis mine): > > > > Mandate > > 4. Decides that, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 57/270 B > and 60/252, the Commission shall effectively assist the Economic and Social > Council as the focal point in the system-wide follow-up, in particular the > re view and assessment of progress made in implementing the outcomes of the > Summit, while at the same time maintaining its original mandate on science > and technology for development, also taking into account the provisions of > paragraph 60 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome;5 > > > > 5. Agrees that the system-wide follow-up shall have a strong development > orientation; > > > > 6. Decides that, in the exercise of its responsibility as defined in > paragraph 4 above, the Commission sh all review and assess progress made in > implementing the outcomes of the Summit and advise the Council thereon, > including through the elaboration of recommendations to the Council aimed at > furthering the implementation of the Summit outcomes, and that to th at end, > the Commission shall: > > (a ) Review and assess progress at the international and regional levels > in the implementation of action lines, recommendations and commitments > contained in the outcome documents of the Summit; > > (b ) Share best and effective practices and lessons learned and identify > obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome > them and important measures for further implementation > > of the Summit outcomes; > > (c) Promote dialogue and foster partnerships, in coordination with other > appropriate United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies, to > contribute to the attainment of the Summit objectives and the implementation > of its outcomes and to use information and communication technologies for > development and the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, > with the participation of Governments, the private sector, civil society, > the United Nations and other international organizations in accordance with > their different roles and responsibilities; > > > > Working methods > > 11. Recommends that the Commission provide for Governments, the private > sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international > organizations to participate effectively in its work and contribute, within > their areas of competence, to its deliberations; > > > > 13. Decides also that, in addition to its traditional working practices, > the Commission will continue to explore development - friendly and > innovative uses of electron ic media, drawing upon existing online databases > on best practices, partnership projects and initiatives, as well as other > collaborative electronic platforms, which would allow all stakeholders to > contribute to follow-up efforts, share information, learn from the > experience of others and explore opportunities for partnerships; > > > > Multi -stakeholder approach > > 14. Decides further that, while using the multi-stakeholder approach > effectively, the intergovernmental nature of the Commission should be > preserved; > > > > **** > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > > > I agree with Avri´s picture of "an open dialogue on internet > governance" and > > > I also think it would not be strategically interesting to have such a > > > prominent focus on IGF, when our worries are actually wider. > > > > > > I also agree with Izumi´s evaluation that a loose and informal > coordination > > > would be better, at least for now. > > > > > > Ayesha made very important suggestions (high quality real time > transcription > > > and webcast) that I believe should be reinforced in all our > communications > > > with CSTD. This is crucial if we want to involve a larger group of > people on > > > this discussion. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Roland Perry > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> In message <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD at acm.org>, at > 10:35:20 on > > >> Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > > >>>> > > >>>> Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector > > >>>> WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and > > >>>> present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision > > >>>> worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" > first. > > >>> > > >>> Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations or International > > >>> Organizations. > > >>> > > >>> I have heard both used. > > >> > > >> And even if it says IO, is that really a traditional home for the > private > > >> sector or technical community organisations such as ICANN, and IETF. > > >> > > >>> The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open > pass > > >>> to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why > > >>> thee would be a specific IGO group. Also even if there were, I do > not > > >>> understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the > group. > > >> > > >> http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010inf1_enfrsp.pdf > > >> > > >> ...is a recent attendee list from CSTD, and they have a category for > > >> Intergovernmental Organisation, separate from "United Nations" > > >> (organisations). And finally a category of "Specialised Agency". > > >> > > >> All of those are separate from actual government reps (categorised by > UN > > >> region for the purposes of this WG), so would at least have to find > some > > >> home as a distinct "5" I'd have thought. > > >> > > >> Bringing up the rear are NGOs, CS and business, and "Resource > persons". > > >> -- > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Thu Dec 23 15:16:55 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:16:55 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> <88383B18-16F1-4563-B2CF-503247AFD913@acm.org> Message-ID: <01a101cba2de$5affe3f0$10ffabd0$@net> The way it is being done right now, for me, question remains that what value GA adds to the process? Those foreign service bureaucrats from all different nations sitting in easy chairs, taking lead from their allies or leads in larger diplomatic and global political war games, decide on an issue, which now is a matter of extreme importance (didn’t want to write bread and butter here) for millions of people all around the world. This is frustrating L Shahzad From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 1:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 Hi Avri, Granted you did not say without Governments. However, I believe that a separation of IGF from UN GA will work against governments involvement. I agree that IGF and the UN can work together without the painful rebirths, but I don't see the GA giving a general blessing no limited in time or disassociating itself from the IGF. Best, Miguel On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I never said without governments. As you will notice, I have every intention that governments should be full and equal partners. What I hope is that a global open dialogue on IG should be such that in 2015 its existence did not depend on the UN-GA giving it permission to exist, but that it would exist on its own without needing its initiator's blessing for another painful rebirth. This round has shown us that no matter how much the IGF or any other process achieves during its 5 years, the need to come back to the UN-GA for continued existence means a chance for those who despise it and those who want to eliminate all traces of multistakeholder governance to diminish its value. Also we spent nearly 2 years on the process question 'will they let us be' being the main issue under discussion, limiting the amount of forward progress that might have been achieved on the substantive issues. I am hoping that within five years that particular door can be closed. a. On 23 Dec 2010, at 13:50, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear all: > > I support Marilia views. > > On Avri's ideal of continuing IGF beyond 2015 without the need to pass by the UN GA, although I understand where she is coming, let´s not forget that the UN with all its defects, its the only global organization available. And as usual, the national and the regional levels are where the real work takes place. As a consequence, I think it is necessary to keep struggling/working in a multistakeholder way, including everybody, even governments. :-) > > On Ayesha suggestion on real time transcription, it has been a request long time made by different people (including Gov. rep) to the CSTD secretariat. All people/entities interested should keep the pressure on this to the CSTD Secretariat. > > Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of procedure of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on ECOSOC Res. 2006/46. For this, it is necessary to take into account that the current rules of procedure apply to various functional commissions of ECOSOC, but CSTD is the only one which in the WSIS outcome documents and in its redefined mandate resolution, was explicitly requested to use it. > > Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. > > Miguel > > Annex > > Some selected text from the ECOSOC 2006/46 resolution (emphasis mine): > > Mandate > 4. Decides that, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 57/270 B and 60/252, the Commission shall effectively assist the Economic and Social Council as the focal point in the system-wide follow-up, in particular the re view and assessment of progress made in implementing the outcomes of the Summit, while at the same time maintaining its original mandate on science and technology for development, also taking into account the provisions of paragraph 60 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome;5 > > 5. Agrees that the system-wide follow-up shall have a strong development orientation; > > 6. Decides that, in the exercise of its responsibility as defined in paragraph 4 above, the Commission sh all review and assess progress made in implementing the outcomes of the Summit and advise the Council thereon, including through the elaboration of recommendations to the Council aimed at furthering the implementation of the Summit outcomes, and that to th at end, the Commission shall: > (a ) Review and assess progress at the international and regional levels in the implementation of action lines, recommendations and commitments contained in the outcome documents of the Summit; > (b ) Share best and effective practices and lessons learned and identify obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome them and important measures for further implementation > of the Summit outcomes; > (c) Promote dialogue and foster partnerships, in coordination with other appropriate United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies, to contribute to the attainment of the Summit objectives and the implementation of its outcomes and to use information and communication technologies for development and the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, with the participation of Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international organizations in accordance with their different roles and responsibilities; > > Working methods > 11. Recommends that the Commission provide for Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international organizations to participate effectively in its work and contribute, within their areas of competence, to its deliberations; > > 13. Decides also that, in addition to its traditional working practices, the Commission will continue to explore development - friendly and innovative uses of electron ic media, drawing upon existing online databases on best practices, partnership projects and initiatives, as well as other collaborative electronic platforms, which would allow all stakeholders to contribute to follow-up efforts, share information, learn from the experience of others and explore opportunities for partnerships; > > Multi -stakeholder approach > 14. Decides further that, while using the multi-stakeholder approach effectively, the intergovernmental nature of the Commission should be preserved; > > **** > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I agree with Avri´s picture of "an open dialogue on internet governance" and > > I also think it would not be strategically interesting to have such a > > prominent focus on IGF, when our worries are actually wider. > > > > I also agree with Izumi´s evaluation that a loose and informal coordination > > would be better, at least for now. > > > > Ayesha made very important suggestions (high quality real time transcription > > and webcast) that I believe should be reinforced in all our communications > > with CSTD. This is crucial if we want to involve a larger group of people on > > this discussion. > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > >> > >> In message <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD at acm.org>, at 10:35:20 on > >> Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > >>>> > >>>> Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector > >>>> WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and > >>>> present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision > >>>> worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first. > >>> > >>> Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations or International > >>> Organizations. > >>> > >>> I have heard both used. > >> > >> And even if it says IO, is that really a traditional home for the private > >> sector or technical community organisations such as ICANN, and IETF. > >> > >>> The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open pass > >>> to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why > >>> thee would be a specific IGO group. Also even if there were, I do not > >>> understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the group. > >> > >> http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010inf1_enfrsp.pdf > >> > >> ...is a recent attendee list from CSTD, and they have a category for > >> Intergovernmental Organisation, separate from "United Nations" > >> (organisations). And finally a category of "Specialised Agency". > >> > >> All of those are separate from actual government reps (categorised by UN > >> region for the purposes of this WG), so would at least have to find some > >> home as a distinct "5" I'd have thought. > >> > >> Bringing up the rear are NGOs, CS and business, and "Resource persons". > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 15:26:56 2010 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:26:56 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] VS: Next Steps In-Reply-To: <6Lh1GdR9nKENFAY6@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075B9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075BA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006FB5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <021f01cb9f8c$4e761370$eb623a50$@net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A075C7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <80FCAAE3-3A97-4DCC-A101-EDBB5B90CF0D@acm.org> <6Lh1GdR9nKENFAY6@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I support what Wolfang said, particularly in relation to the ways to produce an effective impact from non governmental sources. I also share with Marilia about the need to keep looking to the whole IG ecosystem and the different processes (EC and CSTD IGF WG among others) at the same time to design and execute an adequate strategy. Finally on the question by Roland, usually in the UN system, 2 months are required for translation into the official languages to make it to the deadline, which is a requisite to be an official document. State members can skip the requirement of translation during the session, but usually they oppose. In other words, the final version in English of the report should be ready around the 27th of March. Best, Miguel On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <80FCAAE3-3A97-4DCC-A101-EDBB5B90CF0D at acm.org>, at 07:56:14 on > Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Avri Doria writes > > >> On 21 Dec 2010, at 05:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> Before discussing in detail a Plan B or C, we should try to form a strong >>> "Group of the 20" which would work inside the WG on IGF Improvement and >>> would have the capacity (and legitimacy) to produce, if needed, a "minority >>> report" if no consensus between the (majority of) governmental and (the >>> minority of) non-governmental members of the group is achievable until May >>> 2011. >>> >> > I'm wondering what the actual deadline for a report in front of the CSTD in > May is. Last year, 8th March was the date that most of the internal-to-UN > reports were dated. > > Resolutions can be proposed and written during the meeting, but input > papers probably have a deadline (mindful that last year Sha's report from > the Sharm Consultation, originally intended to go direct to ECOSOC, was only > allowed at CSTD because no member state raised an objection to it being only > available untranslated). > > > So, the IGC has a list of 10 possible candidates for the 5. Are any of >> these viable candidates for the academic and technical community in order to >> maximize the placement of those chosen. Did we do sufficient outreach in >> forming that group to have included people who are not IGC regulars in the >> group of proposed members? >> > > You'd have to ask the nomcom. > > > Who chooses the Academics and Technical Community members? >> > > If the Technical Community turn up wearing mainly 'International' badges, > and Academics from this Caucus wearing 'Civil Society' badges, there's a bit > of a vacuum here. > > Who chooses business? >> > > ICC almost certainly. > > Who chooses International organizations? >> > > This is an odd one, because it was looking difficult to find five > 'Intergovernmental' organisations. If International actually excludes > Intergovernmental, then as Wolfgang suggests, it's pretty easy to fill it > from a group of Ecosystem players more often called "Technical community". > > > Probably need for the co-cordinators, or maybe someone designated by the >> co-cordinators, to do outreach to the movers and shakers in the other >> stakeholders group to see how we form/coordinate this beast. I think it >> might be interesting if the stakeholder groups could actually present the >> proposed Group of 20 to the Chair. >> > > Sounds like you need an "action committee" of at least one person from each > of the four constituencies. Having worked out exactly who fits where. > -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 23 15:13:11 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:13:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 19:50:12 on Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Miguel Alcaine writes >Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of >procedure of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on >ECOSOC Res. 2006/46. Be careful what you wish for, in the context of involving NGOs and Civil Society by strict application of that resolution: "Pursuant to Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not in consultative status with the Council, but which received accreditation to the World Summit on the Information Society, may participate, upon approval by the Council in a timely manner, on an exceptional basis and without prejudice to the established rules of the United Nations, in the next two meetings of the Commission, this provision being based on the understanding that in the meantime, said organizations and entities will apply for consultative status with the Council in accordance with existing rules and procedures, and that in accordance with Council resolution 1996/31, the Committee on Non- Governmental Organizations is invited to consider such applications, in accordance with the rules and procedures of the United Nations, and to do so as expeditiously as possible" Which has been extended to include participation in 2010's meeting (and as far as I can see has also applied to any meetings since then), which is two years beyond what 2006/46 envisaged. -- 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 Thu Dec 23 18:35:09 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:35:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site Message-ID: Phase 1 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site are complete. These include: Summary of posts to the governance list, recent Twitter posts, and our most recent statements, appear on the front page. The Limesurvey polling software, and digress.it commenting software, have both been moved to our own Web space, and links provided from our main Web site (under "Statements"). Coordinators no longer need to edit the "Statements" page to post links to recent statements - if the "Statement" content type is used, they appear listed there automatically in chronological order. Content has been re-organised, more logically, I think. Coordinators can edit in rich text. There is a search function. The back end has been upgraded to the latest stable version. Phase 2 of the improvements will be to add more interactivity to the site - blog space, wiki functionality, and hopefully to integrate Web site logins with the mailing list. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 10:34:55 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:34:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Congratulations for the enhancements! And thank you very much. Three suggestions and one concern follow below: - On the "membership" section, it would be interesting to know a little more about IGC members, where they are from, their organization, etc. This is very important to our outreach strategy. We need to know who we are, so we can evaluate who is missing. It would be easier to map the regions in which our presence is strong and the ones we need to reinforce it, and to find members that could help with outreach in their countries. A basic questionnaire could be created, so the information about each member would be uniform. New members could answer the questionnaire when they sign in to the list. Current members would have to be asked to reply the questionnaire. - It would be interesting to have an easy way to access to videos that are important to IGC in an organized manner. Videos are an increasingly important way to convey messages and to "tell our story" to future members. There is good material in youtube already, while other videos (from IGF for instance) need to be edited. If IGC members could contribute to this resource pool of videos, it would be easier to make it grow. But we need to have some way to classify them, so they can be retrieved more easily. - It would also be interesting to have a "resource" section, of relevant texts and documents made available by the members. But we need to archive them in a coherent manner as well. Now one concern. Although I think it is very useful to find our posts to the IGC list in IGC website and although and I agree that IGC discussions should be transparent, I am worried that some strategic discussions we carry out here on the list would be accessible by anybody. I don´t know, but maybe our members will start to think twice before saying something, and we may lose in some degree the frankness that has characterized the discussions on the list. I tend to believe that the content of e-mails sent to the list should only be accessible to members, after they log in on the platform, but I would very much like to hear other thoughts about it. Maybe when the blog section is ready our members can choose what they want to post to the world and what is internal conversation. Happy holidays! Marilia On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Phase 1 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site > are complete. These include: > > > - Summary of posts to the governance list, recent Twitter posts, and > our most recent statements, appear on the front page. > - The Limesurvey polling software, and digress.it commenting software, > have both been moved to our own Web space, and links provided from our main > Web site (under "Statements"). > - Coordinators no longer need to edit the "Statements" page to post > links to recent statements - if the "Statement" content type is used, they > appear listed there automatically in chronological order. > - Content has been re-organised, more logically, I think. > - Coordinators can edit in rich text. > - There is a search function. > - The back end has been upgraded to the latest stable version. > > > Phase 2 of the improvements will be to add more interactivity to the site - > blog space, wiki functionality, and hopefully to integrate Web site logins > with the mailing list. > > -- > > *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. > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 24 11:11:27 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:11:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2EFFBC72-2710-4A00-8F44-9EACD12BA7EE@acm.org> Hi, I think that the archive had been open to the world for many years. Just as subscribing to the list is open to everyone, even if they do not wish to be members proper. As a transparency maximalist, I would be sad to see either restricted. Besides, closed lists are only security by obscurity anyway, as any member of the list can forward/publish anything anytime they wish. It is best to remember (not that I always do myself): before you send a message, be sure you would be ok if you saw it posted on a bulletin board, or IGCleaks, for all to see. a. On 24 Dec 2010, at 10:34, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Now one concern. Although I think it is very useful to find our posts to the IGC list in IGC website and although and I agree that IGC discussions should be transparent, I am worried that some strategic discussions we carry out here on the list would be accessible by anybody. I don´t know, but maybe our members will start to think twice before saying something, and we may lose in some degree the frankness that has characterized the discussions on the list. > > I tend to believe that the content of e-mails sent to the list should only be accessible to members, after they log in on the platform, but I would very much like to hear other thoughts about it. Maybe when the blog section is ready our members can choose what they want to post to the world and what is internal conversation. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 11:18:56 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:18:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <2EFFBC72-2710-4A00-8F44-9EACD12BA7EE@acm.org> References: <2EFFBC72-2710-4A00-8F44-9EACD12BA7EE@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri is right ... the mailing list archives have always been available in the public domain. I guess now it would just be a little more obvious to all with the new "socialized" approach. Rgds , Tracy On Dec 24, 2010 12:11 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: Hi, I think that the archive had been open to the world for many years. Just as subscribing to the list is open to everyone, even if they do not wish to be members proper. As a transparency maximalist, I would be sad to see either restricted. Besides, closed lists are only security by obscurity anyway, as any member of the list can forward/publish anything anytime they wish. It is best to remember (not that I always do myself): before you send a message, be sure you would be ok if you saw it posted on a bulletin board, or IGCleaks, for all to see. a. On 24 Dec 2010, at 10:34, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Now one concern. Although I think it is very u... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Dec 24 11:37:40 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:37:40 -0200 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <2EFFBC72-2710-4A00-8F44-9EACD12BA7EE@acm.org> References: <2EFFBC72-2710-4A00-8F44-9EACD12BA7EE@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri and Tracy, Thanks for the prompt response. I see your point and I agree transparency is valuable. I just would like to make two comments: - I was not aware of what you mentioned: "the archive had been open to the world for many years" and that the policy is "before you send a message, be sure you would be ok if you saw it posted on a bulletin board". Maybe I failed to read the subscription page with the attention deserved and this misinformation is my fault. But in any case, I would like to suggest that this is made clearer to newer members, like me, who have not been around when these sort of things were discussed. - To be honest, my opinion about it is that discussions of substance should always be open. This is basic principle of transparency. But I tend to believe that depending on how hard the political game is, sometimes it is useful to discuss strategic actions with more privacy. Are attempts for "privacy" effective? It depends. I participate on lists that have leaked, others that have successfully carried out private political articulation to face ponctual and concrete challenges. As the IG game tends to become harder in the future, this is something to think about, in my opinion. Maybe this is why separate lists were created to discuss "strategy", "outreach", and most people agreed this should be the approach? Anyway, I don't have a problem with complete transparency, I just believe this should be made clearer to new members, as mentioned before. Best! Marilia On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think that the archive had been open to the world for many years. Just > as subscribing to the list is open to everyone, even if they do not wish to > be members proper. > > As a transparency maximalist, I would be sad to see either restricted. > > Besides, closed lists are only security by obscurity anyway, as any member > of the list can forward/publish anything anytime they wish. It is best to > remember (not that I always do myself): before you send a message, be sure > you would be ok if you saw it posted on a bulletin board, or IGCleaks, for > all to see. > > a. > > > > On 24 Dec 2010, at 10:34, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Now one concern. Although I think it is very useful to find our posts to > the IGC list in IGC website and although and I agree that IGC discussions > should be transparent, I am worried that some strategic discussions we carry > out here on the list would be accessible by anybody. I don´t know, but maybe > our members will start to think twice before saying something, and we may > lose in some degree the frankness that has characterized the discussions on > the list. > > > > I tend to believe that the content of e-mails sent to the list should > only be accessible to members, after they log in on the platform, but I > would very much like to hear other thoughts about it. Maybe when the blog > section is ready our members can choose what they want to post to the world > and what is internal conversation. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 24 12:30:42 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:30:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: <2EFFBC72-2710-4A00-8F44-9EACD12BA7EE@acm.org> Message-ID: On 24 Dec 2010, at 11:37, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I was not aware of what you mentioned: "the archive had been open to the world for many years" and that the policy is "before you send a message, be sure you would be ok if you saw it posted on a bulletin board". Maybe I failed to read the subscription page with the attention deserved and this misinformation is my fault. But in any case, I would like to suggest that this is made clearer to newer members, like me, who have not been around when these sort of things were discussed. The charter does say : Mailing lists and other communication methods will be archived. But adding such a message to the welcome message is a good idea. > and that the policy is "before you send a message, be sure you would be ok if you saw it posted on a bulletin board". I did not mean to imply this was an IGC policy. This is my personal recommendation to anyone and everyone who ever sends email anytime anywhere. 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 antonio at moreiras.eng.br Fri Dec 24 14:09:33 2010 From: antonio at moreiras.eng.br (Antonio M. Moreiras) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:09:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations! The site looks great, and useful! -- Antonio M. Moreiras antonio at moreiras.eng.br -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 24 14:52:37 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:52:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: + 1 for Kudos on the new site layout and functionality! The Wiki and Blog functionality will be fantastic additions. Maybe photo and video social feeds are not too far away as well. Rgds , Tracy On Dec 24, 2010 3:09 PM, "Antonio M. Moreiras" wrote: Congratulations! The site looks great, and useful! -- Antonio M. Moreiras antonio at moreiras.eng.br ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 15:04:12 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 01:34:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jeremy I am beginning to work on Web Design projects and am willing to collaborate with some one to create a Joomla CMS / Wordpress CMS for IGC. My technical knowledge is limited, but I have installed joomla for blogstudio.in (and minimized the design by hiding the modules for the time being) and have set us turiya.co.in as a wordpress site. I should be able to contribute a little bit to your effort to improve the web presence of IGC, if you require help on this. Sivasubramanian M http://isolatednetwork.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Phase 1 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site > are complete. These include: > > > - Summary of posts to the governance list, recent Twitter posts, and > our most recent statements, appear on the front page. > - The Limesurvey polling software, and digress.it commenting software, > have both been moved to our own Web space, and links provided from our main > Web site (under "Statements"). > - Coordinators no longer need to edit the "Statements" page to post > links to recent statements - if the "Statement" content type is used, they > appear listed there automatically in chronological order. > - Content has been re-organised, more logically, I think. > - Coordinators can edit in rich text. > - There is a search function. > - The back end has been upgraded to the latest stable version. > > > Phase 2 of the improvements will be to add more interactivity to the site - > blog space, wiki functionality, and hopefully to integrate Web site logins > with the mailing list. > > -- > > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Dec 24 20:22:05 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:22:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 1 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <378C2451-F4AF-488B-B7C4-60E4B6790901@ciroap.org> On 24/12/2010, at 11:34 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > - On the "membership" section, it would be interesting to know a little more about IGC members, where they are from, their organization, etc. > I'm going to be migrating the membership into an LDAP database, which can be shared by all of the applications we use. This should also allow us to do some nice data mapping like you mention. A bit of elbow work will be involved though, so if anyone else wants to pitch in and help with Web development or design, please let me know. > - It would be interesting to have an easy way to access to videos that are important to IGC in an organized manner. Videos are an increasingly important way to convey messages and to "tell our story" to future members. There is good material in youtube already, while other videos (from IGF for instance) need to be edited. If IGC members could contribute to this resource pool of videos, it would be easier to make it grow. But we need to have some way to classify them, so they can be retrieved more easily. > This shouldn't be hard. I'll take it on board. > - It would also be interesting to have a "resource" section, of relevant texts and documents made available by the members. But we need to archive them in a coherent manner as well. > This is planned. > Now one concern. Although I think it is very useful to find our posts to the IGC list in IGC website and although and I agree that IGC discussions should be transparent, I am worried that some strategic discussions we carry out here on the list would be accessible by anybody. I don´t know, but maybe our members will start to think twice before saying something, and we may lose in some degree the frankness that has characterized the discussions on the list. > Without duplicating what others have said already, I would note that we have the flexibility to create closed mailing lists for working groups, if we want to be tactical about something. And I can, in light of your suggestion, make it more obvious on the list subscription page that archives are open to all. -- 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Sat Dec 25 16:34:05 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:34:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: ,<413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>,,, <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org>,,<51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org>,,,, Message-ID: Dear list, The report of the CSTD intersessional panel on the composition of the IGF WG has been posted:http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d19_report-wsis_en.pdf Happy holidays, Yrjö > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:13:11 +0000 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 > > In message > , at > 19:50:12 on Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Miguel Alcaine > writes > > >Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of > >procedure of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on > >ECOSOC Res. 2006/46. > > Be careful what you wish for, in the context of involving NGOs and Civil > Society by strict application of that resolution: > > "Pursuant to Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July > 1996, non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not in > consultative status with the Council, but which received accreditation > to the World Summit on the Information Society, may participate, upon > approval by the Council in a timely manner, on an exceptional basis and > without prejudice to the established rules of the United Nations, in the > next two meetings of the Commission, this provision being based on the > understanding that in the meantime, said organizations and entities will > apply for consultative status with the Council in accordance with > existing rules and procedures, and that in accordance with Council > resolution 1996/31, the Committee on Non- Governmental Organizations is > invited to consider such applications, in accordance with the rules and > procedures of the United Nations, and to do so as expeditiously as > possible" > > Which has been extended to include participation in 2010's meeting (and > as far as I can see has also applied to any meetings since then), which > is two years beyond what 2006/46 envisaged. > -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Sun Dec 26 01:02:52 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:02:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: Thank you Yrjö for the timely reporting to us. In the summary, the last para is of importance to us. 9. The stakeholders invited to participate are requested to coordinate among themselves and propose five representatives which should reflect the diversity of every stakeholder category, with a view to providing a balanced representation. As our NomCom is working to select the five names, this corresponds to our selection. izumi 2010/12/26 Yrjö Länsipuro : > Dear list, > The report of the CSTD intersessional panel on the composition of the IGF WG > has been posted: > http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d19_report-wsis_en.pdf > > Happy holidays, > Yrjö > >> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:13:11 +0000 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 >> >> In message >> , at >> 19:50:12 on Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Miguel Alcaine >> writes >> >> >Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of >> >procedure of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on >> >ECOSOC Res. 2006/46. >> >> Be careful what you wish for, in the context of involving NGOs and Civil >> Society by strict application of that resolution: >> >> "Pursuant to Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July >> 1996, non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not in >> consultative status with the Council, but which received accreditation >> to the World Summit on the Information Society, may participate, upon >> approval by the Council in a timely manner, on an exceptional basis and >> without prejudice to the established rules of the United Nations, in the >> next two meetings of the Commission, this provision being based on the >> understanding that in the meantime, said organizations and entities will >> apply for consultative status with the Council in accordance with >> existing rules and procedures, and that in accordance with Council >> resolution 1996/31, the Committee on Non- Governmental Organizations is >> invited to consider such applications, in accordance with the rules and >> procedures of the United Nations, and to do so as expeditiously as >> possible" >> >> Which has been extended to include participation in 2010's meeting (and >> as far as I can see has also applied to any meetings since then), which >> is two years beyond what 2006/46 envisaged. >> -- >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 26 05:09:34 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:09:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17 In-Reply-To: References: <413773278-1292946885-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1857061474-@bda2622.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4D11E2E3.8030107@apc.org> <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 23:34:05 on Sat, 25 Dec 2010, Yrjö Länsipuro writes >Dear list, >The report of the CSTD intersessional panel on the composition of the >IGF WG has been posted: >http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d19_report-wsis_en.pdf 5 representatives from the business community 5 representatives from civil society 5 representatives from the technical and academic community 5 representatives from Intergovernmental organizations I note that it has reverted to "Intergovernmental" not "International". -- 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Dec 27 05:58:39 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 05:58:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC at the Consultation on Enhanced cooperation, New York, Tuesday Dec 14 2010 - part 1 Message-ID: Now for something a bit delayed – the pieces finally in place. Beginning here, two emails will report on IGC at the Consultation on Enhanced cooperation, New York, Tuesday Dec 14 2010. This first email summarizes my observations, then provides links to a transcript, audio and video snippets, and the handout; as well as time code markers for some media links and relevant notes. The second email will address apparent implications from the day’s discussion for sustaining the multi-stakeholder model. Source material to support this first email is in a mini-site, http://igc.concord-net-now.org (which uses a secondary on one of my utility domains - any material that will be kept longer-term passes to Jeremy and onto the IGC site). Summary My ears – with of course my personal filters – heard, as follows: The exchanges, across the day Dec 14, came across like nothing so much as a re-run of the five or so years of WSIS, with then also ladled on the ensuing more recent five-year history. As we all know too well … but to be clear about antecedents: the struggle that overtook WSIS targeted the expansion of any Internet oversight functions, from a single country, to shared responsibility worldwide. Then, the stalemate that concluded WSIS produced IGF and, nominally, Enhanced cooperation. But the changes that were sought, for expansion of oversight, largely have not come to pass. If that point is only implicit in the day’s proceedings. IGF by design was not spec’ed to make changes, and the status quo is only slightly evolved by the last five years of ICANN history. Enhanced cooperation has until now been dormant and so of course is also without effect. Across particularly the first phase of WSIS, a core group of countries were often the ‘voices’ for expansion, for example, India, China, Brazil, South Africa. So, at the end of the decade, at the Dec 14 2010 Enhanced cooperation consultation, five years after WSIS, all-in about ten years later? The voices we heard leading were … Brazil, India, South Africa, China supporting. For example. And of course several other countries, also voices familiar from WSIS. To get some sense for how the other fellow sees it seems vital naturally, particularly with deep differences in views. The above is the sense I took away. In summary, a group of actors sees that there have not been changes and now is the time, finally. Of course the additional, and pivotal, product of WSIS was the emergence of the multi-stakeholder model. That, properly, is where we focus concern. The day’s events reflected on this – which comes along in a separate email, as said. Also. There seemed one fairly firm conclusion from the day. At least if you follow how Under-Secretary-General Sha put it: A process of Enhanced cooperation is now ‘irreversible.’ A process that will be separate from, if perhaps complementary to, IGF. His conclusion cited the recent history of ECOSOC resolutions; the statement itself you can find at 1:57:45 in the afternoon UN video. Various voices, states and others, were strongly, if diplomatically, in opposition. But the die seemed cast, if into a heated furnace ... Transcript, audio and video snippets, time code markers in media links, relevant notes In general, as I said to Milton at the day’s conclusion, IGC’s part seemed to be ‘a hit.’ There was more than one appreciative response to the scheduled IGC ‘presentation’ in the morning. (Transcript of my comments is linked below.) Including appreciation for our ‘Wikileaks and Enhanced Cooperation’ handout. Fortunately both Milton and I were there. Milton has given good detail on his comments in the afternoon. Particularly, Milton conveyed important substance from the lunch discussion with the Brazilian delegates. (Links are below to video snips of both Milton’s and my afternoon interventions, also the intervening response from Under-Secretary-General Sha.) Morning A transcript of my scheduled comments for IGC is at http://igc.concord-net-now.org/morning/morning.html There is at the end also a pdf of the transcript, as well as a snip of the audio. (At 2:23:04 in the UN morning audio. The morning session was audio only, while video came back up for the afternoon.) Afternoon There are three video snippets from the afternoon. My afternoon intervention is at http://igc.concord-net-now.org/allen/Allen.html (At 1:35:48 in the UN video. Less than five minutes - plus, see below.) Milton's is at http://igc.concord-net-now.org/mueller/Mueller.html (At 1:27:20 in the UN video. Less than four minutes.) Milton's came before mine chronologically (as the time code shows). I have left U-S-G Sha's comments at the end of my afternoon segment - there he offers appreciation for Milton's, as you may by now have seen and heard. Because one of U-S-G Sha's longer comments - made between Milton's and mine - are apropos the day's discussion, those are the third video up. http://igc.concord-net-now.org/sha/Sha.html (At 1:31:31 in the UN video. Four plus minutes.) (Navigation in the little mini-site is a bit funky - the screen capture tool used to grab the video presented a puzzle, which led to a workaround (don't ask, you don't want to know). But for a simple little site, it will do.) The two UN pages that hold the recordings for the day, to recapitulate: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-consultations-on-enhanced-cooperation-of-international-public-policy-issues-pertaining-to-the-internet-am.html http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html Notes Item As we see, there is a contrast between the core dialog of the day, as MIlton saw it, compared with my take. That, in part anyway, likely is in the filters each of us brings to it. I will not imagine a ‘correct’ view. Rather, the difference in implication is interesting. My understanding is of a continued push forward on an original agenda, from WSIS. With still (very much) a place for multi-stakeholders. Rather than a debate about future forms of governance. The reality is likely more complicated than either of our summaries, and future choices by the various actors will reveal more accurately. Item To note as well. Bill Graham at lunch offered in my view a key formulation for what might work, in the quest for greater effectiveness at IGF. (Myself I have long held for the necessity of IGF ‘recommendations' – but see Bill’s thought.) I hope I do his justice: Instead of discussions to produce ‘recommendations,’ which because of impending clout mean struggle over text. Rather, focus discussion on ideas, and how different ideas compete or dovetail, a discussion that can be productive Item Myself, I found U-S-G Sha’s candor refreshing, including about himself and about his country. A genuine invitation to ‘say it like it is,’ in a United Nations setting, has to be a good occasion. (As to the comparison with the once-upon-a-time US appointee, Bolton, I find effectively no similarity and differences obviating.) Item John Curran, I thought, near the end of the afternoon, summarized the tensions between those pro and those con a separate process of Enhanced cooperation. See 2:33:48 in the UN video. (While U-S-G Sha offered appreciation for me by name at the end of an earlier comment, my impression was that he had John in mind, judging from the context.) Item Finally, as to the numbers of participants in the Consultation, my impression was closer to a count of 100 rather than 50. I will try to check. David Allen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Dec 27 14:20:12 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:20:12 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC at the Consultation on Enhanced cooperation, New York, Tuesday Dec 14 2010 - part 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks so much, David. This is useful. John Curran said something very important. While people do not make clear what it means to say that IGF and enhanced cooperation are “complementary”, it will be very difficult to move forward. I think IGF and enhanced cooperation need to be formally linked and it is always the debate in the IGF that should feed the discussion about policies, no matter which form enhanced cooperation takes. Marilia On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 8:58 AM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > Now for something a bit delayed – the pieces finally in place. > > Beginning here, two emails will report on IGC at the Consultation on > Enhanced cooperation, New York, Tuesday Dec 14 2010. This first email > summarizes my observations, then provides links to a transcript, audio and > video snippets, and the handout; as well as time code markers for some media > links and relevant notes. The second email will address apparent > implications from the day’s discussion for sustaining the multi-stakeholder > model. > > Source material to support this first email is in a mini-site, > http://igc.concord-net-now.org (which uses a secondary on one of my > utility domains - any material that will be kept longer-term passes to > Jeremy and onto the IGC site). > > *Summary* > > My ears – with of course my personal filters – heard, as follows: > > The exchanges, across the day Dec 14, came across like nothing so much as a > re-run of the five or so years of WSIS, with then also ladled on the ensuing > more recent five-year history. > > As we all know too well … but to be clear about antecedents: the struggle > that overtook WSIS targeted the expansion of any Internet oversight > functions, from a single country, to shared responsibility worldwide. Then, > the stalemate that concluded WSIS produced IGF and, nominally, Enhanced > cooperation. > > But the changes that were sought, for expansion of oversight, largely have > not come to pass. If that point is only implicit in the day’s proceedings. > IGF by design was not spec’ed to make changes, and the status quo is only > slightly evolved by the last five years of ICANN history. Enhanced > cooperation has until now been dormant and so of course is also without > effect. > > Across particularly the first phase of WSIS, a core group of countries were > often the ‘voices’ for expansion, for example, India, China, Brazil, South > Africa. So, at the end of the decade, at the Dec 14 2010 Enhanced > cooperation consultation, five years after WSIS, all-in about ten years > later? The voices we heard leading were … Brazil, India, South Africa, China > supporting. For example. And of course several other countries, also voices > familiar from WSIS. > > > To get some sense for how the other fellow sees it seems vital naturally, > particularly with deep differences in views. The above is the sense I took > away. In summary, a group of actors sees that there have not been changes > and now is the time, finally. > > Of course the additional, and pivotal, product of WSIS was the emergence of > the multi-stakeholder model. That, properly, is where we focus concern. The > day’s events reflected on this – which comes along in a separate email, as > said. > > Also. There seemed one fairly firm conclusion from the day. At least if you > follow how Under-Secretary-General Sha put it: A process of Enhanced > cooperation is now ‘irreversible.’ A process that will be separate from, if > perhaps complementary to, IGF. His conclusion cited the recent history of > ECOSOC resolutions; the statement itself you can find at 1:57:45 in the afternoon > UN video > . > > Various voices, states and others, were strongly, if diplomatically, in > opposition. But the die seemed cast, if into a heated furnace ... > > *Transcript, audio and video snippets, time code markers in media links, > relevant notes* > > In general, as I said to Milton at the day’s conclusion, IGC’s part seemed > to be ‘a hit.’ There was more than one appreciative response to the > scheduled IGC ‘presentation’ in the morning. (Transcript of my comments is > linked below.) Including appreciation for our ‘Wikileaks and Enhanced > Cooperation’ handout. Fortunately both Milton and I were there. Milton has > given good detail on his comments in the afternoon. Particularly, Milton > conveyed important substance from the lunch discussion with the Brazilian > delegates. (Links are below to video snips of both Milton’s and my afternoon > interventions, also the intervening response from Under-Secretary-General > Sha.) > > Morning > A transcript of my scheduled comments for IGC is at > > http://igc.concord-net-now.org/morning/morning.html > > There is at the end also a pdf of the transcript, as well as a snip of the > audio. (At 2:23:04 in the UN morning audio. > The morning session was audio only, while video came back up for the > afternoon.) > > Afternoon > There are three video snippets from the afternoon. > > My afternoon intervention is at > > http://igc.concord-net-now.org/allen/Allen.html > > (At 1:35:48 in the UN video. > Less than five minutes - plus, see below.) > > Milton's is at > > http://igc.concord-net-now.org/mueller/Mueller.html > > (At 1:27:20 in the UN video. > Less than four minutes.) > > Milton's came before mine chronologically (as the time code shows). I have > left U-S-G Sha's comments at the end of my afternoon segment - there he > offers appreciation for Milton's, as you may by now have seen and > heard. Because one of U-S-G Sha's longer comments - made between Milton's > and mine - are apropos the day's discussion, those are the third video up. > > http://igc.concord-net-now.org/sha/Sha.html > > (At 1:31:31 in the UN video. > Four plus minutes.) > > (Navigation in the little mini-site is a bit funky - the screen capture > tool used to grab the video presented a puzzle, which led to a workaround > (don't ask, you don't want to know). But for a simple little site, it will > do.) > > The two UN pages that hold the recordings for the day, to recapitulate: > > > http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-consultations-on-enhanced-cooperation-of-international-public-policy-issues-pertaining-to-the-internet-am.html > http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/12/special-event-2.html > > *Notes* > > *Item* > As we see, there is a contrast between the core dialog of the day, as > MIlton saw it, compared with my take. That, in part anyway, likely is in the > filters each of us brings to it. I will not imagine a ‘correct’ view. > > Rather, the difference in implication is interesting. My understanding is > of a continued push forward on an original agenda, from WSIS. With still > (very much) a place for multi-stakeholders. Rather than a debate about > future forms of governance. > > The reality is likely more complicated than either of our summaries, and > future choices by the various actors will reveal more accurately. > > *Item* > To note as well. Bill Graham at lunch offered in my view a key formulation > for what might work, in the quest for greater effectiveness at IGF. (Myself > I have long held for the necessity of IGF ‘recommendations' – but see Bill’s > thought.) > > I hope I do his justice: Instead of discussions to produce > ‘recommendations,’ which because of impending clout mean struggle over text. > Rather, focus discussion on ideas, and how different ideas compete or > dovetail, a discussion that can be productive > > *Item* > Myself, I found U-S-G Sha’s candor refreshing, including about himself and > about his country. A genuine invitation to ‘say it like it is,’ in a United > Nations setting, has to be a good occasion. (As to the comparison with the > once-upon-a-time US appointee, Bolton, I find effectively no similarity and > differences obviating.) > > *Item* > John Curran, I thought, near the end of the afternoon, summarized the > tensions between those pro and those con a separate process of Enhanced > cooperation. See 2:33:48 in the UN video. > (While U-S-G Sha offered appreciation for me by name at the end of an > earlier comment, my impression was that he had John in mind, judging from > the context.) > > *Item* > Finally, as to the numbers of participants in the Consultation, my > impression was closer to a count of 100 rather than 50. I will try to check. > > David Allen > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 00:23:29 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 03:23:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Carta_Aberta_=E0_Presidente_Dilma_Rou?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ssef_e_=E0_Ministra_da_Cultura_Ana_Buarque_de_Hollanda?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Produtores, gestores, artistas e ativistas publicaram na internet uma carta à Presidente Dilma Roussef e à Ministra da Cultura Ana Buarque de Hollanda. Além de dar as boas-vindas à Ministra, o documento registra as expectativas e pautas relativas à formulação de politicas públicas para a cultura, inclusive a continuação do processo de reforma da lei de direito autoral. O texto completo encontra-se no endereço eletrônico: http://culturadigital.br/cartaaberta O documento está aberto para a adesão de todos os cidadãos que concordarem com o seu conteúdo. *Se concordar com o texto, assine e divulgue em suas redes!* *Se discordar, debata **e divulgue em suas redes!* *Obrigado! * _______________________________________________________________ *Thiago Skárnio *- Alquimídia.org | SKYPE: skarnio | https://TWITTER.com/skarnio www.ganesha.org.br | http://culturadigital.br/skarnio www.sarcastico.com.br | Redes: http://skarnio.tv -- :: Lembrem-se que, para evitar uma grande quantidade de emails, basta escolher a melhor opção: 1. Ler as postagens do grupo na web; 2. Receber resumos (1 e-mail por dia); 3. Receber e-mail com compilação de postagens (Até 25 mensagens); 4. Receber todos os emails assim que eles chegarem (Nesta opção, você pode criar uma regra no seu navegador de emails para que as mensagens entrem diretamente em uma pasta). Se você deseja apenas receber informações dos coordenadores, se inscreva aqui: http://groups.google.com.br/group/forum-de-midia-livre-inscritos _____________________________________ :: Você recebeu esta mensagem porque está inscrito no Grupo "Fórum de Mídia Livre" em Grupos do Google. :: Para postar, envie um e-mail para forum-de-midia-livre at googlegroups.com :: Para cancelar a sua inscrição, envie um e-mail para forum-de-midia-livre-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com :: Para ver mais opções, visite http://groups.google.com.br/group/forum-de-midia-livre?hl=pt-BR -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t